IMAGE  EVALUATrON 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


11.25 


^  ^   122 


tiuu 

Ma 

^  IIIIUi& 


HiotDgraiiiic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)872-4503 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  MicroreproductionsV  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historlques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographicaliy  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  ar»  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  te  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  iti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cat  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-itre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normale  de  f ilmage 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


□    Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

□    Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagie 

□    Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^  et/ou  peiiiculie 

□    Cover  title  missing/ 
Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


□   Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag^as 

□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restauries  et/ou  pelliculies 

r*^!^ Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
l^i    Pages  dicolories,  tacheties  ou  piquees 


I — I    Coloured  maps/ 


D 


Cartes  gAographiques  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noirel 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


I I    Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


D 


D 


D 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli*  avec  d'autres  documents 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  le  long  da  la  marge  intirieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  itait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  M  filmics. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimentaires: 


□    Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachees 

r~U^howthrough/ 
C^   Transparence 

I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


D 


Quality  inigale  de  {'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  matiriel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  dispcnible 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata.  une  pelure, 
etc..  cnt  it6  filmies  A  nouveau  de  facon  A 
obtenir  la  meiileure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film^  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


^■^■Bl   HH^iMI   fg^m^^—    ^^^^^   ^^^^__    ^^^^^   ^^^^^   ^^^H^   ^^^^^    ^^^^^   ^^^^^ 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  copy  filmed  h«r«  has  b««n  rvproduead  thank* 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Archives  of  Ontario 
Toronto 

Tha  imagaa  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  eonsidaring  tha  condition  and  lagibiiity 
of  tha  original  copy  end  in  Icaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacif ications. 


L'sxamplaira  film*  fut  raproduit  grica  i  la 
gAntrosit*  da: 

Archivm  of  Ontario 
Toronto 

Laa  imagaa  suivantaa  ont  4ti  raproduitaa  avae  la 
piua  grand  soin.  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattat*  da  I'axamplaira  fiimA,  at  •n 
eonformit*  avae  laa  conditions  du  contrat  da 
fiimaga. 


Original  eopiaa  In  printad  papar  eovars  ara  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  iliustratad  impraa- 
sion,  or  tha  bacic  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  eopiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  iliustratad  impraa« 
sion,  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  iliustratad  imprassion. 


Laa  axamplairaa  origlnaux  dont  la  couvartura  un 
papiar  aat  imprimia  sont  filmis  an  commanpant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
damiAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
dimpraaaion  ou  dlllustration,  soit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  salon  la  eaa.  Toua  laa  autraa  axamplairaa 
origlnaux  sont  filmAa  an  eommanqant  par  la 
pramiAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
dimpraaaion  ou  d'llluatration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  damlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 


Tha  laat  racordad  frama  on  aaeh  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  -m^(  moaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  y  (maaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appiias. 


Un  daa  symbolaa  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
damlAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha,  salon  la 
caa:  la  symbols  — »-  signifia  "A  SUIVRE".  la 
symbola  ▼  signifia  "FIN". 


Mapa,  platas.  charts,  ate,  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratioa.  Thoaa  too  iarga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axpoaura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  iaft  hand  eomar,  iaft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  framaa  aa 
rsquirad.  Tha  following  diagrama  illustrata  tha 
mathod: 


Laa  cartaa.  planchaa.  tableaux,  ate.,  pauvant  Atra 
fiimte  A  daa  taux  da  rMuetion  diffirants. 
Lorsqua  la  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cilehA,  il  aat  fiimi  A  partir 
de  Tangle  sup4rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  k  droite, 
et  de  haut  an  baa.  an  prenant  la  nombre 
d'imeges  nteesseire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
iilustrent  la  mithoda. 


1 

2 

3 

r-    1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

,.,*»" 


1 


lltl   '/ 


>  i! 


THE  FISHERIES  TEEATY. 


SPEECH 


ov 


Hon.  henry  M.  TELLER, 


OF    COLORADO, 


/  - 


t^^^ 


IN  THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


JULY   21,  1888. 


4 


WASHINGTON. 

1888. 


The  Fisheries  Treaty. 
S  r  E  E  C  H 

OP 

HON.    HENllY    M.    TELLEE. 


The  Senate  having  under  coni^ideration  the  fisheries  treaty  in  open  executive 
eeesion— 

Mr.  TELLER  said: 

Mr.  President:  I  congratulate  the  Senate  and  I  congratulate  the 
country  that  we  approach  the  discu^^ion  of  this  case  irom  what  I 
consider  a  proper  business  standpoint;  that  we  are  discussing  this 
question  in  the  presence  ol'  the  whole  American  people;  that  we,  the 
agents  of  the  people,  are  giving  our  reasons  for  and  against  this  treaty, 
the  reasons  that  shall  govern  our  votes,  in  their  hearing,  and  in  so  doing 
we  are  recognizing  our  obligation  to  them. 

The  Senators  who  have  favored  this  treaty  have,  without  exception  I 
believe  in  this  discussion,  alluded  to  the  fact  that  we  had  taken,  or 
were  taking,  into  our  councils  not  only  the  American  people,  but  all 
the  people  of  Great  Britain  interested  in  this  subject,  and  the  Senators 
who  have  favored  by  their  speeches  in  this  Chamber  the  ratification  of 
this  treaty  have  been  pronounced  in  tboir  opinion  that  such  discussion 
in  open  session  was  contrary  to  the  great  interests  of  the  American 
people.  They  have  put  it,  I  suppose,  on  the  ground  that  we  are  noti- 
fying the  English  Government  of  the  weakness  of  our  case.  The  Presi- 
<ieut  of  the  United  States  notified  the  people  of  Great  Britain  of  the 
weakness  of  our  case  in  his  message  to  the  Senate.  The  Secretary 
of  State,  in  his  communication  to  the  President  and  in  his  public 
utterances  made  from  time  to  time,  either  by  letter  or  in  public 
speeches,  or  in  interviews  through  the  newspapers,  has  given  the  En- 
glish-speaking people  of  the  world  to  understand  that  this  treaty  is 
more  than  we  are  entitled  to  under  the  convention  of  1818.  Sir,  when 
the  English  people  and  the  American  people  shall  attempt  to  negotiate 
another  convention,  they  will  not  refer  to  the  speeches  made  in  this 
Chamber  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  the  ofiers  made  in  this 
treaty  are  all  that  we  are  entitled  to  and  more,  but  they  will  recur  to 
the  official  language  of  the  Executive  of  the  nation,  to  the  official  lan- 
guage of  the  Secretary  of  State;  and  it  is  folly  to  say  that  this  treaty 
can  not  be  discussed  in  the  open  Senate  by  the  American  Senate  for 
fear  that  our  utterances  will  be  used  against  this  Government  here- 
altur  when  the  Executive  and  the  Department  of  the  Government 
charged  with  this  branch  of  the  public  service  have  been  so  free  with 
their  utterances,  both  official  and  otherwise. 

I  notice,  I  think,  that  every  Senator  who  approaches  this  subject 
from  the  other  side  has  declared  his  objection  to  its  discussion  in  pub- 

3 


lie.  I  noMce  also  that  every  Senntor  who  has  ap|)roache(I  tlie  subject 
from  that  Me  ut  least  litis  declared  that  inKsnuich  us  the  discuHHion 
was  to  be  iu  open  .Senate  it  should  be  I'ree  and  it  should  be  fnll,  and 
that  HO  far  as  he  wivs  concerned  there  should  be  no  withholding  from 
the  public  and  troni  the  world  the  views  that  were  entertained  of  this 
subject;  and  yet  when  we  have  got  these  declarations  of  the  several 
Senators  who  have  addressed  the  Senate  we  have  discovered  notliin;^ 
that  mi^ht  not  have  been  proclaimed  from  the  housetops.  We  have 
heard  nothing  that  the  President  h'ad'not  already  said;  we  have  heard 
nothing  that  the  Hicivtary  of  State  had  not  said;  we  have  heard  noth- 
ing that  had  not  been  said  by  the  public  press  of  the  Democratic  party 
in  defense  of  this  treaty. 

So,  Mr.  President,  ailer  all,  while  I  admit  that  this  case  iami  generis, 
while  I  admit  that  it  does  not  stand  in  its  relations  to  a  public  discus- 
sion on  the  same  basil  with  some  of  the  treaties  we  make,  while  I  ad- 
mit that  there  are  reasons  for  the  public  discussion  of  this  treaty  that 
do  not  exist  as  to  all  others,  I  think  it  may  be  said  that  this  instance 
has  demonstrated  ai  least  that  no  danger  will  come  to  the  Uepublicby 
an  open  discussion  of  a  treaty  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  sixty-odd  millions  of  American  people.  It  has  been  dis- 
cussed in  Great  Britain;  it  has  been  discussed  in  Canada;  it  has  been 
ratilied,  I  understand,  by  the  Canadian  government,  ratified  and  ap- 
proved by  the  British  Government. 

I  believe  I  will  mention  che  fact,  as  my  attention  is  called  to  it  by  the 
Senator  from  Vermont  who  sits  in  front  of  me  [Mr.  Edmunds],  that  it 
had  the  unanimous  approval  when  the  vote  was  taken  of  the  Canadian 
Parliament.  I  have  not  been  informed  and  am  not  able  to  state  because 
I  do  not  know  and  have  not  heard  of  any  objection  to  this  treaty  that 
was  made  in  the  British  Parliament. 

The  Senator  who  first  addressed  the  Senate  on  this  subject  on  the 
other  side' was  free  to  talk  alwut  the  infiuence  of  caucus.  He  told  us 
that  there  was  a  caucus  combination  to  bring  the  Senate  first  to  reject 
the  treaty  and  then  to  consider  it  in  open  session.  Now,  I  venture  to  say 
that  neither  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Morgan]  nor  any  other 
Senator  can  point  to  a  Senator  on  this  side  of  the  Chamber  who  has 
ever  at  any  time  given  any  intimation  that  he  proposed  to  support 
this  treaty;  and  inasmuch  as  this  question  of  caucus  domination  and 
caucus  control  has  been  freely  discussed  by  at  least  three  Senators  on 
the  other  side,  I  propose  to  say  that  that  point  was  never  dis(;ussed  in 
our  caucus.  The  liepublican  party,  indeed,  were  against  this  treaty 
from  its  very  first  publication. 

I  may  say  more,  that  a  great  many  Senators  sitting  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Chamber  were  likewise  against  it  at  its  first  publication.  The 
Republican  Senators,  I  say,  without  exception  were  against  it,  and  a 
very  respectable  number  of  the  Senatorson  the  otherside  were  against  it. 

I  understand  that  the  Senators  on  the  otherside  also  caucused  about 
this  matter.  They  caucused  as  to  whether  they  would  discuss  it  in 
open  session,  and  I  believe  a  very  rx>nsiderable  number  of  them  advo- 
cated ip  caucus  and  voted  in  caucus — as  we  were  told  by  a  Democratic 
Senator  in  executive  session,  the  proceedings  of  which  have  been  made 
public,  and  of  which  I  have  a  right  to  speak — in  I'avor  of  its  discussion 
in  the  open  Senate. 

A  Senator  in  my  hearing  suggests  that  it  is  safe  to  say  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  American  Senate  were  opposed  to  this  treaty.  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, I  said  in  executive  session,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  this  treaty 
^ad  come  from  a  Republican  administration  I  do  not  bplieve  tbere  is 


n^<#«twriHj«rw.».^ 


a  Kepublicuu  uu  this  side  of  the  Chamber  who  would  have  Hiipported 
it,  and  I  know  that  there  ia  not  a  Democrat  on  that  side  of  the  Cham- 
ber who  would  have  nupported  it  if  it  liad  not  come  from  a  Democratic 
administration;  and  I  know  more  than  ttjat,  that  there  in  not  any  con- 
fiiderabie  number  of  Senators  on  that  side  of  the  Chamber  who  would 
have  supported  this  treaty  but  for  the  fact  that  the  power  of  the  Ad- 
ministration was  brought  upon  that  body  to  compel  support  of  this 
treaty. 

It  any  Senator  desires  proof  that  the  Administration  is  the  active 
propagandint  of  this  treaty,  I  will  furnish  it.  If  not,  I  think  I  can  rest 
upon  the  general  asHcrtion.  Surely  when  you  see  the  Secretary  of 
State  writing  letters  for  publication,  when  you  see  the  members  of  this 
commission,  who  were  connected  with  the  Administration,  making  pub- 
lic addresses  in  its  defense  and  support,  when  you  find  the  Secretary 
of  State  submitting  to  newspaper  interviews  in  order  that  he  may  give 
the  public  his  views  of  this  treaty,  I  do  not  need  to  go  to  further  proof 
to  show  that  the  whole  force  of  this  Administration  has  been  brought 
to  bear  to  cora}wl  the  Democratic  Senators  and  the  Democratic  party 
to  accept  this  as  a  Democratic  measure. 

The  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Morgan]  attempted  tx>  give  a  his- 
tory of  the  way  in  which  this  treaty  came  into  open  session.  Now,  I 
may  say  in  the  presence  of  my  fellow-Senators  of  my  side,  that  I  was 
perhaps  as  active  aa  any  man  on  our  side  in  bringing  this  question  before 
the  open  Senate,  and  I  think  I  am  not  mistaken  as  to  how  this  matter 
stood.  The  Senator  from  Alabama  said,  as  I  recollect,  that  there  had 
been  originally  forty-one  votes  in  favor  of  its  discussion  in  secret,  and 
three  only  in  favor  of  its  discussion  in  the  open  Senate,  the  three  con- 
sisting of  the  Senator  who  sits  on  my  left,  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Dawes],  the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Sherman],  and  mvnelf.  No 
member  of  the  Senate  has  forgotten  that  when  that  propo.  :oa  came 
before  the  Senate  in  secret  session  the  Senator  from  Alabama  «  eclared 
in  substance  that  if  this  treaty  was  to  be  attacked  by  the  Republican 
Senators  as  a  treaty  as  a  whole,  without  amendment,  he  was  in  favor  of 
its  discussion  in  open  Senate.  I  would  say  that  there  were  several 
Senators,  including  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Platt],  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Kiddlkberger],  the  Senator  from  Oregon 
[Mr.  MiTCiiELi-],  and  others,  who  had  always  voted  in  favor  of  open 
sessions  who  were  not  here  when  that  vote  was  taken.  I  will  say  further 
that  when  the  Republican  caucus  voted  upon  this  question  there  were 
only  three  men  in  it  who  voted  against  the  open  discussion  of  this  treaty. 

I  know  that  several  of  the  Senators  put  it  upon  the  ground  that  the 
case  was  sui  generin.  I  know  several  of  themj-eserved  for  themselves 
the  right  to  insist  that  this  was  not  a  precedent  binding  on  them  in 
the  future.  But  upon  this  question  we  were  practically  unanimous. 
The  Senator  knows  very  well,  as  do  all  the  Senators  who  were  in  that 
executive  session,  that  that  vote  was  not  a  test  whether  this  treaty 
should  be  discussed  in  open  session  or  not.  He  knows  very  well  that 
the  Democratic  side  of  the  Senate  were  presented  to  us  in  the  attitude 
of  being  ready  to  go  into  open  executive  session  if  we  did  not  propose 
to  amend  the  treaty.  He  knows  it  was  said  then  and  there  by  a  num- 
ber of  Senators  on  this  side  that  the  treaty  was  of  such  a  character  that 
no  nmondment  could  l)e  properly  made  to  it,  I  myself  saying  in  execu- 
tive session  that  it  was  a  treaty  untit  to  be  amended,  and  incapable  of 
being  amended  to  be  consistent  and  harmonious  with  the  purpose  and 
object  declared  by  the  State  Department.     So,  Mr.  President,  the  Re- 


6 


))iil)l!<an  .Senators  are  not  in  condition  to  be  criticiMed  or  castigated  on 
.lr>'  nrcoiint. 

Then  came  later  the  vote  in  executive  sesHion  by  which  practlnilly 
the  whole  matter  wusdocided  by  the  Senator  I'rom  Maine  [Mr.  Uau:]. 
When  that  vote  wa8  taken,  at  least  six  men  on  tlu>  other  Hide  of  the 
Chamber  voted  with  us  for  an  open  session.  When  they  saw  that  the 
Republicans  meant  oyten  session  (which  they  did  not  believe  before), 
then  these  six  withdrew  their  votes  belbre  the  result  was  iinnouuced. 
Included  in  that  number  are  some  of  the  Senators  who  are  to-day  criti- 
cising us  for  discussing  this  question  in  open  Senate. 

So,  Mr.  President,  wi;  are  liere  to  discuss  this  (|uestion  ns  I  believe 
all  (lU&stions  of  this  kind  ought  to  be  discussed,  where  we  can  face  the 
sentiment  of  the  American  people;  and  since  the  discussion  has  begun 
I  believe  there  has  been  practically  but  one  sentiment  in  the  country 
upon  this  treaty.  Although  the  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  Ad- 
ministration to  commit  the  Democratic  party  to  it,  it  has  met  with 
very  little  success,  for  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  n  few  persons  in 
certain  sections,  there  has  been  no  interest  in  its  ratification  expressed 
by  anybody. 

The  question  of  our  fishery  rights  on  the  northern  coast  is  not  a  small 
((uestion,  and  it  is  not  a  local  ({uestion.  The  people  of  Colorado  who 
never  avail  themselves  of  these  rights  have  as  much  interest  in  them' 
in  one  sense  as  the  people  of  Maine,  Massachusetts,  or  any  of  the  New 
England  States.  So  far  as  they  concern  our  honor,  our  dignity,  and 
our  rights  they  have  the  same  interest  in  them  as  any  other  citizens 
can  have,  although  they  may  have  a  pecuniary  benefit  in  the  use  of  the 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  for  that  is  what  this  fishery 
claim  is. 

We  in  the  Western  country  would  not  be  willing  that  the  United 
States  should  part  with  its  rights  and  its  privileges  because  we  receive 
no  pecuniary  benefit.  b»'eaiise  we  can  not  start  out  fishing  smacks  and 
fishing  fleets.  If  the  fishery  is  a  right  that  belongs  to  the  people  of  the 
United  Stiites  we  want  it  maintained,  and  we  are  in  favor  of  its  main-l 
tenance.  as  we  are  in  favor  of  maintaining  every  other  right. 

We  recognize  the  fact  that  when  the  treaty  of  1783  was  made  there, 
were  three  tbings  that  stood  out  aramount  in  that  treaty.  First,  our 
independei  ;  second,  the  establ.dhment  of  our  boundaries;  and  third,! 
and  not  le  closely  connected  therewith,  our  fishery  rights;  and  we 
should  as  .,.iickly  think  of  surrendering  a  portion  of  the  State  of  Maine 
at  the  dictation  or  the  bidding  of  British  greed  as  we  would  think  ot 
surrendering  a  single  foot  of  fishing  ground  that  properly  belongs  to 
the  nation.  And  I  am^lad  to  say  that  we  do  not  belong  to  the  class 
of  men  who  purchase  peace  by  the  surrender  of  that  which  is  unques- 
tionably ours.  Willing  always  as  we  are,  as  are  all  the  American  peo- 
ple, to  concede  questions  of  doubtful  authority,  of  a  doubtful  character, 
we  are  never  to  be  intimidated  by  threats  of  war  or  suggestions  of  difii- 
cnlties  that  will  be  incurred  in  the  maintenance  of  that  which  we  all 
agree  rightfully  belongs  to  us. 

Mr.  President,  Great  Britain  might  call  upon  ns  to  surrender  a  piece 
of  Maine  that  would  be  so  small  and  so  worthless  as  to  be  insignificant 
in  comparison  with  the  great  cost  it  would  be  to  us  to  insist  upon  our 
rights  by  war,  and  yet  is  there  anywhere  in  this  country  a  citizen  so 
mean  and  of  so  little  spirit  that  he  would  surrender  an  acre  of  the 
rocks  of  New  England  at  the  demand  of  Great  Britain  or  of  all  the 
world?    And  if  so,  why  should  we  surrender  that  which  is  of  equal 


value  and  the  surrender  of  which  would  be  equal  deKrndiiiion  and  dis- 
grace? 

Mr.  President,  wo  came  to  these  fishery  rights  exactly  as  wecnmeto 
our  bouudury  riKhts,  exactly  as  we  came  to  our  territorial  lM)Uti(luri(>fl, 
exactly  as  we  cuiue  to  our  independiiite.  It  has  been  said  a^aiu  and 
again  that  there  is  not  n  rod  of  that  country  tiiat  our  uncestora  had  not 
fought  lor.  If  Great  Britain  succeeded  in  diuuinatiuK  that  northern 
sea  and  compelling  her  great  rival  of  that  time  to  yield  to  her  it  was 
because  the  American  llsherman  made  it  possible,  and  made  it  possi* 
ble  too  when  British  love  of  peace  was  in  favor  oi  its  surrender. 

If  there  is  a  great  British  dominion  growing  up  upon  our  Northern 
border,  it  is  because  the  New  England  lishermen,  prior  to  the  Hevolu- 
lion,  taoile  it  possible  for  Great  Britain  to  build  and  rear  this  great  po- 
itical  structuie  on  our  north.  And  so,  when  our  ancestors  came  to 
this  question,  they  did  not  say  to  Britain,  "  We  want  you  should  give 
us  this;"  they  said,  "It  is  ours  of  right;"  and  from  that  day  to  this 
there  has  never  been  anybody  until  it  has  been  heard  in  this  Senate — 
and  that,  too,  within  the  last  two  months — who  haa  denied  our  right. 
The  right  of  Great  Britain  has  been  uniformly  considered  exactly  as 
that  of  a  copartner,  a  cotenant,  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
being  owners  in  common.  These  terms  have  all  been  used  again  and 
again  by  American  authorities  in  the  defense  of  our  rights.  Nay,  they 
have  never  been  deniAl.  No  English  authority  has  ever  questioned 
our  rights  as  e(|ual  in  all  respects  except  as  we  surrendered  them  by 
the  treaty  of  1818,  and  what  we  did  not  there  surrender  is  ours  to  this 
day  OS  much  as  it  ever  was,  not  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  any  more  than 
our  independence  is  conceded  by  virtue  of  a  treaty,  not  any  more  by 
treaty  than  the  boundaries  fixed  between  Great  Britain's  dominion  on 
this  continent  and  ours  were  fixed  by  treaty. 

In  1818  we  modified  the  treaty  of  1783.  We  surrendered  some  things 
that  were  ours,  hut,  as  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Hoar] 
iihowed,  not  without  considcTnt  ion  in  return.  We  gave  up  some  things 
and  we  got  others  that  were  considered  then  an  equivalent.  It  was  not, 
as  has  been  said,  a  surrender;  it  was  not  a  yielding,  for  the  American 
people  at  that  time  were  not  in  the  habit  of  surrendering  that  which 
belonged  to  them.  They  had  gone  to  war  with  Great  Britain  for  the 
purpose  of  denying  a  right  that  the  British  asserted,  the  right  of  search 
by  sea;  and  when  the  war  was  over,  and  when  this  question  came  to 
be  settled,  our  people  insisted  that  we  were,  so  far  as  the  fisheries  were 
concerned,  as  we  had  been  before,  and  when  the  negotiations  were  go- 
ing on  for  the  subsequent  treaty  it  was  everywhere  insisted  in  the  United 
States  that  we  would  not  surrender  an  inch  of  territory,  nor  would  we 
surrender  a  single  privilege  that  was  ours  under  the  treaty  of  1783. 

Nobody  who  has  studied  this  question  can  forget  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Adams  which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Madison,  in  which  be  said  that  he  would 
continue  the  war  forever  before  he  would  surrender  the  fisheries.  We 
never  did  surrender.  We  exchanged  with  the  British  for  what  privi- 
leges we  did  not  have  under  the  treaty  of  1783;  we  took  some  that  we  did 
not  have,  and  we  gave  up  some  that  we  did  have.  And  from  that  time 
up  to  1830,  a  period  of  twelve  years,  there  does  not  appear  anywhere 
in  history  that  I  can  find  an  instance  where  our  rights  were  questioned 
or  doubted  to  be  exactly  what  we  insist  now  they  are.  Practically 
they  were  never  disputed  until  1841  by  any  authority  that  was  worthy 
of  attention,  and  practically  I  might  say  not  seriously  until  1843. 

Contemporaneous  exposition,  then,  of  the  treaty  of  1818  is  on  the 
American  side;  it  is  according  to  our  view — a  view  that  has  been  main- 


tained  by  everybody  conneotrd  witb  this  qiiMtion.  Notwithntanding 
the  iiHflertioii  tliat  the  greiit  Hm;r«lary  of  State,  Daniel  WebHtor,  gave 
away  our  cuMe,  uotwithHtandinK  the  asflertion  made  in  this  Chainbt^r 
that  Kdwnrd  Everett  gave  away  tliia  cu8e,  I  oHHert  here  withunt  tear  of 
Buccefwrul  contrudictiun  that  uothinK  of  tlie  kind  can  )m  found,  that 
every  act  of  every  adniioiatration,  fVoni  the  day  the  convention  of  IHIH 
Wiw  rntitiod  up  to  the  time  that  thin  treaty  wan  HiKiied,  hixl  l)een  in 
favor  of  the  American  idea  and  the  American  coDHtruction  of  the  treaty 
of IHIH. 

Mr.  President,  in  1611,  or  porhapa  in  IBIiO.  one  of  the  Hrilinh  prov- 
inceii  made  claim  of  a  character  inconnistcnt  with  the  conHtrnction  put 
upon  the  treaty  by  the  American  Uoverument,  achiim  which  practically 
appears  to  have  slept  until  about  1843.  1  do  not  intend  togo  into  the 
general  headland  theory.  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  question  of 
bays  with  the  .Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Gray],  whom  I  do  not  see 

firesent.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  all  of  the  public  authorities 
n  thin  country  have  uniformly  held  one  way  upon  this  nubjcct,  and  it 
is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  Great  Britain,  the  real  and  renpectable 
party  in  the  cose,  had  acquiesced  in  that,  and  had  abandoned  practi- 
cally any  claim  set  up  either  under  the  headland  theory  or  tho  brood- 
bay  theory. 

Senators  who  have  preceded  me  have  spoken  of  the  Ar^us  and  the 
Washington  cases  as  havinj?  thoroughly  and  completely  established  our 
position.  I  know  the  Senator  from  Delaware  who  addresned  theSenate 
some  ti'ne  since  on  this  subject  insisted  that  the  case  of  the  Waflhing- 
ton  did  not  settle  anything;  and  yet  the  British  Government  acquiesced 
in  that  as  a  determination  not  only  whether  we  had  a  right  to  fish  in 
the  Bay  of  Fundy,  but  in  all  other  bays  of  like  character  and  similarly 
situated.  And  if  there  is  any  headland  theory  to-day  in  existence  in 
the  minds  of  the  British  authorities,  it  is  because  this  Adniinistratiou 
has  revived  it;  it  is  because  this  Administration  has  brought  out  from 
the  old  rubbish  of  the  past  this  exploded  theory  that  the  right  existed 
to  include  as  British  ground  all  the  sea  that  was  within  a  line  drawn 
from  headland  to  headland,  no  matter  how  long  it  might  be  or  how 
great.  But  the  American  Senate  and  the  American  people  are  not 
likely  to  accept  this  new  discovery  of  this  Administration,  and  are  not 
likely  to  avail  themselves  of  this  old  and  exploded  theory. 

Mr.  President,  from  1813,  thetimeof  the  decision  in  the  Washington 
case,  down  to  1853  there  was  practi(;al  quiet  over  this  disputed  ques- 
tion. In  1853  the  British  Government  sent  several  armed  vessels  to 
the  northern  seas  where  these  issues  were  liable  to  arise.  In  1H50, 
before  this  was  done,  we  had  overtures  from  the  British  Government 
for  reciprocity  with  Canadn..  Our  people  had  not  taken  kindly  to  the 
idea,  and  it  was  thought  pt-rhaps  then^  as  seems  to  be  thought  now, 
that  a  little  coercion  would  be  valuable;  that  a  little  pressure  might 
be  brought  upon  us  to  compel  us  to  yield  to  their  demand,  and  so  a 
British  tleet  was  sent  there  with  orders  to  look  out  for  the  American 
fishermen. 

The  matter  came  into  the  American  Senate,  and  I  wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  very  briefly  to  some  observations  then  made. 
The  discussion  was  participated  in  by  the  most  prominent  and  leading 
men  of  that  day,  notably  by  Mr.  liusk,  of  Texas;  Mr.  Borland,  of  Ar- 
kansas; Mr.  Davis,  of  MHSsachusetls:  Mr.  Toncey,  of  Connecticut;  Mr. 
Mason,  of  Virginia;  Mr.  Hantlin,  of  MhIur;  Mr.  Cass,  of  Michigan;  Mr. 
8oul^,  of  Louisiana,  and  a  great  many  others. 

It  was  asserted  then  that  uome  oi  tiieae  vessels  had  been  sent  into  the 


l<  I 


0 


Cuimtliiin  wiitiTs  fw  )hcpiir|NHt'uf  intiinidutiiiK  the(iov«>rnment  oftlio 
United  StiiteH  into  tin-  •'x»'t'iiiioii  (»f  ii  n'«!i|>rocity  treaty.  It  in  Moint- 
wliat  iiitcreMtiMK  tot'ompure  now  with  then  the  nttcriincpH  of  the  prin- 
cipal unrl  leading  DenKwrals  oC  tills  hody.  To-day  \  Hud,  ho  far  oh  there 
hiiH  been  any  <liscnH.sion  oltliiM  i|HeHti(>n  on  the  Democratic  Hide,  every 
Democratic  Senator  who  Iium  iirinen  hiin  prenented  the  extreme  Kritinlk 
view  ot  the  caHe.  Kvery  worn-out  and  explmted  theory,  every  falla- 
ciooH  artinment,  every  ahnurdity  that  hiut  l)een  pnt  forth  by  Cunada 
and  repudiated  by  Ureat  Britain  tindflitHadvo4-ate8  on  thiHfloor.  And 
1  conl'eHH  mvHelt'to  Home  de^n-e  ofhumiliation  wlien  I  liearaHtatenutnt 
made  hy  a  Senator  of  the  Unifod  Stalen  nx  to  the  ri^htHof  this  Oovern- 
nient  that  in  in  perfect  antaj^oninin  to  that  which  hanlH^en  declared  hy 
every  Secretary  of  Stiite  who  has  ever  piuwed  niton  the  ({UeHtion,  the 
present  Secretary  of  State  iiiclud(*d;  and  my  dinj^UHt,  if  I  may  nne  the 
term  prop<!rly  in  tluH  hoily,  Ih  not  mndilied  hy  the  fact  that  each  Sen- 
ator, an  he  thuH  advocates  l>ritish  doctrine  and  the  Kritish  side  of  the 
queHtion,  deelar«M  witli  his  hiind  upon  hiHhreant that  heisactuatcd  and 
influenced  only  hy  the  hi|;hcNt  patriotiHui  while  his  op|)oneuta  are  in- 
fluenced and  actuated  hy  only  the  basest  partisan  purposes. 

(.)h,  Mr.  Freaident,  th<>  Democratic  party  here  and  elsewhere  will 
not  be  able  to  make  the  American  people  believe  that  the  lont<  line  of 
honorable  men  who  have  h*;en  heard  upon  this  (|ueHtion,and  who  luivu 
Hto<Nl  here  and  advocated  the  doctrine  that  we  advocate  us  to  the  con- 
fltrnction  of  the  treaty  of  IHIH,  were  actuate<l  solely  by  partisan  pur- 
poses. Let  them  explain  why  it  is  that  they  have  within  a  twelve- 
month chanKed  their  poMition  on  this  subject,  and  in  so  doin^?  are 
actuated  hy  only  high  and  patriotic  resolves. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  will  submit  without  reading  all  of  thcui  some 
of  the  remarks  made  in  the  Senate  in  IH.VJ.  I  wish  it  would  not  en- 
cumber the  Kecori)  too  much  to  put  in  all  that  Lewis  Cass  said  In  a 
8|)eech  of  great  lenjjth  on  this  sn^iject.  No  Democrat  rosein  the  Senate 
in  IHn'i  to  defend  the  Hritish  Gc^vernment,  to  apoloj^ize  for  its  outrages, 
or  to  defend  its  constrnction  of  <he  treaty  of  IHIH.  Nay,  more;  there 
wiis  no  man  of  any  political  faith  who  did  that.  It  was  left  for  the  later 
day  and  for  the  Administration  of  (Jrover  Cleveland  to  find  men  will- 
ing to  stand  here  and  assert  that  all  their  pred'-cessors  had  been  wronj? 
and  thot  we  had  always  been  in  the  wron>?  and  the  British  Govern- 
ment and  the  Canadian  provinces  in  their  claims  had  lieeu  in  the  right. 

Mr.  Iforland,  of  Arkansas,  in  1  H.VJ,  said : 

It  Is  a  reniarkHlile  fact  tlint  in  l.>oki>>K  liiiuk  tliroiiKli  tlie  liistory  of  our  Oov- 
«riiiiieiit,  etupet'iully  to  tlic  war  period  ol'  Isl2,  aixl  since  tliiit  time  in  every  <liM- 
ptitu  or  lioMtilc  uollJHion  witli  a  forelKn  cmintry,  without  an  exception  tliatnow 
(K'ourH  to  ine,  tliero  Iikh  Iteeu  a  piirly  in  our  country  and  n-presi-ntetl  in  tlie  two 
}I<uiH«'H  of  C'tuiKreHH  wliicli  ha'4  invui'iiilily  taken  Hidt-H  witli  that  foreign  country 
and  HKoiniit  our  own.  —  Iliin.  Solon  llor'nnil  (ArkanHiis),  .July  i'J,  IS-W. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  that  assertion,  I  repeat  that  an  examination 
of  the  records  will  show  that  nobody  asserted  on  this  floor,  nolwdy  as- 
serted in  any  branch  of  the  (loverninent  that  the  British  construction 
was  right.  With  one  accord  those  men  asserted  that  it  was  beneath 
the  dignity  of  the  United  States  to  treat  with  Great  Britain  while  Great 
Britain  had  a  hostile  fleet  on  onr  borders,  and  with  one  united  voice 
they  declared  that  it  was  the  dnty  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  pnt  in  those  seas  gun  for  gun  and  ship  for  ship.  \Vt  niav  bo 
excused  to-day  from  making  that  tis.sertion  or  that  claim.  We  can  not 
well  do  it,  and  we  can  not  do  it  because  the  votes  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Chamber  and  the  Democratic  party  as  represented  in  the  other 
brunch  of  Congress  for  years  have  rendered  it  impossible  for  us  so  to  do. 


10 


'I      I 


v       I 


I  now  ask  to  have  these  extracts  from  that  debate  inserted  without 
reading. 

DEBATE  OF  1852. 

The  conduct  of  Great  Britain  in  this  business  should  be  met  promptly  on  our 
side.  It  is  supposed  by  acme  Senators  to  be  designed  to  bring  about  an  enact- 
ment for  reciprocity  of  trade  on  our  part  with  the  British  colonies.  If  that  be 
HO  I  will  never  give  a  vote  for  such  a  measure  under  such  circumstances,  no 
matter  what  may  be  the  consequences.  I  will  never  yield  to  any  threats  made 
by  the  British  Government. 

It  is  said  upon  the  other  hand  that  it  in  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  aliout  a  nego- 
tiation  by  which  the  British  Government  will  acquire  rightft  in  another  quarter 
Himilar  to  those  which  they  have  acceded  to  us  on  the  northern  coast,  and  which 
we  claim  there.    Sir,  is  this  the  way  to  negotiate? 

It  is  due  to  ourselves  to  protect  our  rights.  I  would  do  nothing  to  bring  on 
war,  but  I  would  not  submiK  to  this  domineering  spirit  which  has  manifested 
itself  too  much  in  all  the  conduct  ot  Great  Britain  with  other  nations.— i/on. 
Thomas  J.  Rusk  (Texas),  July  23. 

It  may  be  true  that  the  proposition  for  reciprocal  trade  between  the  British 
colonies  and  the  United  States  is  at  the  bottom  of  this.  But  I  ask  if  such  a  course 
as  has  been  pursued  is  the  way  to  open  negotiations  with  us  7  Has  it  ever  hap- 
pened  before  in  the  whole  history  of  our  country,  from  the  day  when  our  inde- 
pendence was  acknowledged  by  Great  Britain  until  this  administration,  that 
negotiations  have  been  opened  with  us  through  the  mediumof  cannon  pointed 
against  our  citizens  and  our  ships?  If  there  be  such  an  instance  in  our  nistory, 
I  confess  my  ignorance  of  it,  and  I  would  gladly  have  remained  in  ignorance  to 
my  dying  day  that  suci  a  thing  could  be.— ifon.  iSoIon  Borland  (Arkansas), 
July  23. 

I  do  not  believe  that  in  all  the  great  Interesta  of  the  country  there  is  one  that 
merits  protection  more.  From  that  nursery  springs  the  great  body  of  navi- 
gators and  men  of  enterprise  who  adorn  and  embellish  the  country.  If  you 
take  away  that  protecting  arm  of  the  Government  you  take  that  which  is  more 
essential  tn  you  in  the  defense  of  the  country  than  any  other  thing  that  can  be 
named.  The  enterprise,  the  skill,  and  the  courage  of  these  men  are  manifest 
as  far  as  our  name  and  fame  extend.  *  *  •  This  is  the  nursery  of  the  skill 
and  strength  which  are  indispensable  to  success  on  the  ocean.— ifon.  John  Davis 
(Massachusetts),  July  23. 

I  concur  most  fully  in  the  sentiments  of  the  Senator  fl-om  Massachusetts,  with 
regard  to  the  magnitude  of  the  fishing  industry.  It  has  ever  been  cherished  by 
the  Government  and  the  people  of  this  country,  as  one  of  the  very  highestim- 
portance,  not  only  as  a  profitable  employment,  but  as  a  nursery  for  seamen.  I 
feel  confident  that  nothing  which  has  been  said,  or  that  will  be  said  in  this 
Senate,  will  operate  adversely  to  that  interest.  I  must  say,  however,  that  if  it 
be  proposed  to  open  now  a  negotiation  on  that  subject  under  the  mouths  of 
British  cannon,  it  is  a  mode  of  initiating  it  that  does  not  commend  itself  to  my 
judgment  as  a  citizen  of  this  country,  or  as  a  member  of  this  Senate.  I  trust, 
sir,  that  no  Government  of  this  country  will  ever  open  a  '.legotiation  in  regard 
to  any  interest  in  this  exceptionable,  and,  I  may  say,  humiliating  manner.— 
Hon.  Isaac  Toucey  (Connecticut),  July  23. 

I  know  not  what  these  regulations  are,  but  if  it  means  anything  it  means  that 
we  are  to  negotiate  under  duress.  Aye,  sir,  at  this  day  that  this  great  people, 
covering  a  continent  and  numbering  live  and  twenty  millions,  are  to  negotiate 
with  a  foreign  fleet  on  our  coast.  I  know  not  what  the  President  has  done ;  I 
riaim  to  know  what  the  American  people  expect  of  him.  I  knowthatif  he  has 
done  his  duty  his  reply  will  be,  "I  have  ordered  the  whole  naval  force  of  the 
country  into  those  seas  to  protect  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  against 
British  cannon."— Hon.  James  M.  Mason  (Virginia),  July  23. 

We  shall  need  these  men  hereafter;  we  shall  need  them,  as  we  have  needed 
them,  to  flght  our  battles  upon  the  ocean  and  upon  the  lakes.  *  •  *  When 
that  time  shall  come  it  is  the  American  flsherman  who  will  fight  your  battles, 
as  he  fought  them  in  tlie  war  of  1812.  Tlien,  when  the  British  Government 
threatened  to  sweep  our  little  but  gallant  Navy  from  the  ocean  and  to  annihilate 
our  commerce,  it  was  the  fishermen  from  Marblehead  and  all  along  our  coast 
who  rallied  with  patriotic  hearts  and  with  ready  hands  to  sustain  the  Stars  and 
Stripes  of  our  country ;  and  it  was  by  their  prowess  that  Great  Britain  was  made 
to  feel  the  force  of  a  freeman's  arm  whenever  wielded  in  a  holy  cause.  When- 
ever the  cross  of  St.  George  went  down  before  the  Stars  and  Stripes  we  were  in- 
debted mainly  to  them  for  that  victory.  We  shall  be  faithless  to  the  trust  that 
has  been  reposed  in  us  if  we  do  not  sustain  and  stand  by  what  are  their  legal, 
their  international,  and  their  treaty  rights.  Stand  by  them,  as  they  have  always 
stood  by  their  country.  They  ask  no  more.— ifon.  Hannibal  Hamlin  (Maine), 
August  5. 

We  did  not  get  the  right  to  fish  on  the  ocean  from  England  or  any  other 
earthly  power.  We  got  it  from  Almighty  God,  and  we  mean  to  hold  on  to  it 
through  the  whole  extent  of  the  great  deep,  now  in  the  days  of  our  strength,  as 


11 


ou  ' 'athers  held  on  to  it  in  the  days  of  our  weakness.  •  *  *  I  desire  no  war 
W  h  i:^ngland.  Far  from  us  and  them— Croni  the  world,  indeed— far  be  such  a 
calamity.  But,  air,  the  way  to  avoid  war  is  to  stand  up  firmly  and  temperately 
for  our  clear  rights.  Submission  never  yet  brought  safety,  and  never  will.  To 
yield  when  clearly  rifrht  is  to  abandon  at  once  our  interests  nnd  our  honor,  and 
to  show  the  world  how  the  finger  of  scorn  can  be  best  pointed  at  us.— Ifon.  Lewit 
Cms  (Michigan),  August  3. 

There  is  that  with  nations  whose  fortune  it  is  to  have  thriven  and  prospered 
under  the  assumption  and  exercise  of  rights  which  are  not  theirs,  that  they 
grow  infatuated  with  their  too-easily  earned  aucceiises  and  become  rash  and 
d.iringand  reckless  in  the  extravagant  conceit  that  whatever  they  wish  to  at> 
tain  it  is  in  their  power  to  grasp,  and  that  wliatever  they  grasp  is  legitimately 
theirs.  Such  is  England,  She  knows  where  lies  the'secret  in  the  fountain  of 
your  power.  She  loathes  to  see  those  naval  nurseries  of  yours,  those  hives  of 
busy  seamen  pitched  upon  the  waters  of  what  she  would  have  you  call  her  seas, 
her  gulfs,  her  bays,  as  so  many  advanced  posts,  watching  over  the  deep.  She 
can  not  but  look  with  extreme  jealousy  and  concern  on  the  growing  prosperity 
of  this  country,  and  think  it  were  well  for  her  if  she  could  bar  its  progress  while 
it  has  not  yet  reached  its  acme.    •    •    * 

Sir,  what  does  England  mean?  Whp  I  i3  she  after  ?  But,  hush  I  She  Is  nego- 
tiating. •  •  ♦  She  is  negotiating.  <  *  *  To  negotiate  under  such  circum* 
stances  were  to  sink  in  the  dust  what  of  pride,  what  of  dignity,  what  of  honor, 
we  have  grown  to  since  we  became  a  nation.  *  *  *  Until  England  has  with- 
drawn her  squadron,  and  gives  satisfaction  for  what  wrongs  she  may  have  per- 
petrated, let  no  negotiation  be  entertained,  and  if  contrary  to  my  expectation 
any  has  been  entertained,  let  it  be  dropped  at  once  and  abandoned. — Hon,  Pierre 
Soule  (Louisiana),  August  12. 

No  patriots  responded  more  readily  to  their  country's  call  than  the  fishermen 
of  New  England.  Who  were  the  seamen  in  the  two  wars  that  guarded  our 
coasts  and  captured  the  gallai:'- ships  of  the  British  navy?  They  were  mostly 
the  fishermen  of  our  country.  Av  >«re  were  they  educate<l  for  tlieir  duties?  In 
the  free  schools  of  New  England,  oi>  the  banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence.  Whence  could  these  seamen  have  been  supplied  bad  not 
Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  encouraged  the  fishing  industry? 

In  the  small  town  of  Marblehead  alone  "at  the  close  of  the  Revolution  there 
were  more  than  thirteen  hundred  widows  and  fatherless  children"  who  had 
been  so  rendered  by  deeds  of  war.  At  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812  it  is  said  that 
more  than  five  hundred  citizens  of  this  town  were  released  from  one  British 
prison.  A  celebrated  fisherman  of  the  State  of  Maine,  Skipper  Tucker,  as  he 
was  called,  captured  more  guns  during  the  Revolutionary  war  than  any  naval 
commander  in  the  service. 

This,  sir,  is  the  class  of  men  for  whom  I  speak  and  whose  industry  I  ask  the 
Government  to  protect.— tfon.  Eno  Scudder  (.New  Hampshire),  August  12. 

At  this  time  the  public  of  Canada  were  excited,  and  finally  we  came 
to  the  reciprocity  treaty  of  1854,  a  reciprocity  treaty  which  I  heard  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Alabama  say  that  he  regretted,  as  I  understood 
him,  was  not  in  force  now,  a  treaty  that  gave  to  the  Canadian  Govern- 
ment 94  per  cent,  of  the  advantage  of  the  whole  transaction  as  against 
42  per  cent,  for  us — 94  per  cent,  on  import  duties  was  their  advantage 
as  against  42  per  cent,  for  us.  Subsequently  that  treaty  wasabandoned, 
and  then  came  the  treaty  of  1871. 

The  treaty  of  1871  is  so  familiar  to  everybody  in  the  country  that  I 
shall  not  detain  the  Senate  with  any  extended  remarks  upon  it.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  we  fou  nd  that  we  had  done  j  ust  what  the  Senator  from  Texas 
[Mr.  Keaoan]  said  as  a  member  of  the  House  a  short  time  ago  before 
he  came  into  this  body  we  always  did.  He  said  we  had  never  made  a 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  that  we  did  not  get  the  worst  of  it,  although 
I  have  no  doubt  he  will  vote  for  this  treaty.  We  found  we  had  the 
worst  of  the  treaty  of  1871,  and  we  found  that  we  were  ultimately  com- 
pelled to  pay  at  the  rate  of  JiiOU.OOO  a  year  for  a  privilege  which,  if  the 
proof  showed  anything,  it  showed  was  of  very  little,  if  any,  value  at 
all.  Then  we  abrogated  that  treaty.  We  abrogated  it  as  soon  as  we 
could.  We  abrogated  it  by  the  course  provided  tor  in  the  treaty.  In 
1883  Congress  passed  a  resolution  in  favor  of  its  abrogation  that  took 
effect  on  the  1st  of  July,  1885. 

When  this  Administration  came  into  power  it  came  in  with  this 


1 


13 

questien  clear,  as  far  as  they  were  concerned  without  vexation.  Congress 
hud  Naid  that  the  treaty  of  1871  should  be  abrogated,  and  notice  had 
been  given,  and  the  Ist  of  July  following  the  treaty  was  to  be  at  an 
end,  or  at  least  such  portions  of  it  as  related  to  the  llsheries. 
.  There  had  been  no  demand  made  by  anybody  after  the  treaty  of  1871 
had  been  abrogated,  by  the  men  interested  in  fisheries,  by  the  mer- 
chants upon  that  coast  or  anywhere;  nobody  had  suggested  that  we 
bad  made  a  mistake,  and  nobody  seemed  to  be  anxious  for  the  contin- 
uation of  the  old  relations  except  the  Canadians  themselves.  Seven 
years  before  that  time,  in  1878,  we  had  attempted  to  retire  from  it  and 
they  had  declined  to  allow  us  to  do  so;  but  nobody  in  1885  wanted  a 
continuation  of  the  treaty  of  1871  save  and  except  the  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment and  the  British  Government  because  the  Canadians  did* 

>So  when  this  Administration  came  into  power  they  came  in  un- 
trammelled. There  was  no  treaty;  there  was  nothing  to  disturb  them. 
All  they  had  to  do  was  to  do  what  their  predecessors  had  done,  insist 
upon  the  same  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1818  that  we  bad  always 
contended  for. 

I  do  not  forget  that  while  the  distinguished  Senator  from  New  York 
[Mr.  EvARTs]  was  serving  the  people  in  the  capacity  of  Secretary  of 
State  a  difficulty  arose  with  reference  to  this  question,  and  I  have  not 
forgotten  and  1  think  the  country  has  not  forgotten  with  what  masterly 
skill  he  handled  the  question,  and  how  he  brought  the  Canadians  and 
the  British  power  to  acknowledge  the  correctness  of  his  position  in  ac- 
cordance and  in  line  with  that  of  his  illustrious  predecessors,  and  how 
he  secured  from  the  British  Government  a  large  payment  of  money  to 
indemnity  the  fishermen  for  losses  they  had  sustained  under  an  im- 
proper construction  of  the  treaty. 

I  know  that  the  Senator  from  Alabama  said  that  there  had  been  no 
redress  furnished,  that  these  outrages  had  been  going  on.  Why,  Mr. 
President,  the  outrages  were  stopped  when  it  was  found  that  there  was  a 
determination  that  they  should  stop,  and  the  British  not  only  quit,  but 
they  paid  for  the  damages  they  had  caused. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  our  complaint  against  the  Canadian  and  the  British 
Governments  ?  I  would  not  venture  myself  to  formulate  it,  but  in  the 
correspondence  between  our  minister,  Mr.  Phelps,  and  the  British  au- 
thorities I  find  an  admirable  sttitement  of  our  complaint,  which  I  de- 
riire  to  read  to  the  Senate.  In  writing  to  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  on 
the  26th  day  of  July,  1887,  Mr.  Phelps,  among  other  things,  said : 

But  what  the  United  States  Government  complain  of  in  these  cases  is  that  ex- 
isting regulations  have  been  construed  with  a  technical  strictness,  aud  enforced 
with  a  severity,  in  cases  of  inadvertent  and  accidental  violation  where  no  harm 
was  done,  which  is  both  unusual  and  unnecessary,  whereby  the  voyages  of  ves- 
sels have  been  broken  up  and  heavy  penalties  incurred.  That  the  liberal  and 
reasonable  construction  of  these  laws  that  had  prevailed  for  many  years,  and  to 
which  the  fishermen  had  become  accustomed,  was  changed  without  any  notice 
given.  And  that  every  opportunity  of  unnecessary  interference  with  tlie  Amer- 
ican fishing  vessels,  to  the  prejudice  and  destruction  of  their  business,  has  been 
availed  of. 

That  is  the  gist  of  the  complaints  as  made  by  our  minister  to  Eng- 
land. I  will' present  some  other  portions  of  this  letter  which  bear  on 
the  same  subject,  and  also  an  extract  from  his  letter  of  June  2, 1886,  as 
not  only  showing  what  we  complain  of,  but  the  purpose  for  which  these 
ontrages  are  committed. 

[Complaint  of  Mr.  Phelps  to  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  July  26,  1887.] 

Wliether,  in  any  of  these  cases,  a  technical  violation  of  some  requirement  of 
law  had.  upon  close  and  severe  construction,  taken  place,  it  is  not  easy  to  deter- 
m.ne.    But  if  such  rules  were  generally  enforced  in  such  a  manner  in  the  ports 


13 


Congress 
notice  had 

0  be  at  an 

atyofl871 
the  mer- 
ed  that  we 
the  contin- 
es.  Seven 
rom  it  and 
wanted  a 
adian  Gov- 

did* 
ime  in  un- 
iturb  them, 
done,  insist 
had  always 

1  New  York 
Secretary  of 

I  have  not 
at  masterly 
ladians  and 
sition  in  ac- 
rs,  and  how 
af  money  to 
ider  an  im- 

lad  been  no 

Why,  Mr. 

t  there  was  a 

ily  quit,  but 

I  the  British 
it,  but  in  the 
3  British  au- 
which  I  de- 
Salisbury  on 
igs,  said : 

isea  is  thatex- 
I,  and  enforced 
vherenoharm 
•oyages  of  ves- 
lie  liberal  and 
y  years,  and  to 
out  any  notice 
vithtlie  Amer- 
ness,  has  been 

later  to  Eng- 
hich  bear  on 
ne  2, 1886,  as 
r  which  these 

26,  1887.] 

•equirement  of 
i  easy  to  deter- 
er  in  tiie  ports 


of  the  world,  no  vessel  could  sail  in  siifety  witlsout  oarryini;  a  solicitor  versed  it> 
the  intricacies  of  revenue  and  port  lenulations. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  upecify  tlie  various  oases  referred  to,  as  the  facts  in  many 
of  tliein  liave  been  already  laid  liefore  Her  Miijesty's  Oovernnjent. 

Since  the  receipt  of  Lord  IddeHleiKli's  note  tlie  United  Slates  Uovernnient  haS' 
learned  witit  ^ravu  reifret  tliat  Her  Majesty's  assent  Iuih  l)een  given  to  tite  act 
of  the  Parliament  of  (.'anada,  passed  at  its  late  session,  entitled  "An  act  further 
to  amend  the  act  respecting  fishing  by  foreign  vessels,"  which  has  been  the  sub- 
let of  observation  in  tlie  previous  correspondence  on  the  subject  between  the 
Governments  of  the  United  States  and  of  Great  Britain. 

By  the  provisions  of  this  act  any  foreign  ship,  vessel,  orboat  (whether  engaged 
in  fishing  or  not)  found  within  any  harbor  in  Cana<la,  or  within  3  marine  miles 
of  "any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  or  creeks  of  Canada,"  may  l)e  brought  into  port  by 
any  of  the  ofllcers  or  persons  mentioned  in  tlie  act,  her  car^o  searched,  and  her 
master  examined  upon  oath  touching  the  cargo  and  voyage  under  a  heavy  pen- 
alty if  the  questions  asked  are  not  truly  answered ;  and  if  such  ship  has  entered 
such  waters  "  for  any  purpose  not  permitted  by  treaty  or  convention,  or  by  law 
of  the  United  Kingdom  or  of  Canada,  for  the  time  being  in  force,  such  ship,  ves- 
sel, or  boat,  and  the  tackle,  rigging,  apparel,  furniture,  stores,  and  cargo  tlierei'l' 
shall  be  forfeited." 

It  has  been  pointed  nut  in  my  note  to  Lord  Iddesleigh,  above  mentioned,  that 
tha  3-mile  limit  referred  to  in  this  act  is  claimed  l>y  the  Canadian  Government 
to  include  consi<lerable  portions  of  the  high  seas,  such  as  the  Bay  of  Pundy. 
the  Bay  of  Chaleiir,  and  similar  waters,  by  drawing  the  line  from  headland  to 
headland,  and  that  American  tlshermenhad  been  excluded  from  those  waters 
accordingly. 

It  has  been  seen  also  that  the  term  "  any  purpose  not  permitted  by  treaty  "  is 
held  by  that  Government  to  comprehend  every  possible  act  of  human  inter- 
course, except  only  the  four  purposes  named  in  the  treaty — shelter,  repairs, 
wood,  and  water. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  recent  act,  therefore,  and  the  Canudian  interpre- 
tation of  the  treaty,  any  American  dshing  vessel  that  may  venture  into  a  Cana- 
dian harbor,  or  may  have  occasion  to  pass  through  the  very  extensive  waters 
thus  comprehended,  may  be  .seized  at  the  discretion  of  any  one  of  numerous 
subordinate  otUcers,  carried  into  port,  subjected  to  search  and  the  examination 
of  her  master  upon  oath,  her  voyage  broken  up,  and  the  vessel  and  cargo  con- 
fiscated, if  it  sliall  be  determined  by  the  local  authorities  that  she  has  ever  even 
posted  or  received  a  letter  or  landed  a  passenger  in  any  part  of  Her  Majesty's 
dominions  in  America. 

And  it  is  publicly  announced  in  Canada  that  a  larger  fleet  of  cruisers  is  being 
prepared  by  the  authorities  and  that  greater  vigilance  will  be  exerted  on  tlieir 
pari  ill  the  next  fishing  season  'than  in  the  last. 

It  is  in  the  act  to  which  the  one  above  referred  to  is  an  amendment  that  is 
found  the  provision  to  which  I  drew  attention  in  a  note  to  Lord  Iddesleigh  of 
December  2, 1886,  by  which  it  is  enacted  that  in  ease  a  dispute  arises  as  to  whether 
any  seizure  has  or  has  not  been  legally  made,  the  burden  of  proving  the  ille- 
gality of  the  seizure  shall  be  upon  the  owner  or  claimant. 

In  his  reply  to  that  note  of  .Tannary  11,  1887,  his  lordship  intimates  that  this 
provision  is  intended  only  to  impose  upon  a  person  claiming  a  license  the  bur- 
den of  proving  it.  Hut  a  reference  to  the  act  shows  that  such  is  by  no  mean» 
the  restrict'ou  of  the  enuctnient.  It  vel'ers  in  the  broadest  and  clearest  terms  to 
any  seizure  that  is  made  under  the  provisions  of  the  act,  which  covers  the  whole 
subject  of  protection  against  illegal  fishing;  and  it  applies  not  only  to  the  proof 
of  a  license  to  fish,  but  to  all  questions  of  fact  wliatever,  necessary  to  a  deter- 
mination us  to  the  legality  of  a  seizure  or  the  authority  of  the  person  making  it. 

[Complaint  of  Mr.  Phelps  to  Lord  Rosebery,  June  2, 1886,] 
Recurring,  then,  to  the  only  real  question  in  the  ca.se, whether  the  vessel  is  to 
be  forfeited  for  purchasing  bait  of  an  inhabitant  of  Nova  .Scotia,  to  be  used  in 
lawful  fishing,  it  may  be  readily  admitted  that  if  the  language  of  the  treaty  of 
1818  is  to  be  interpreted  literally,  rather  than  according  to  its  spirit  and  plain 
intent,  a  vessel  engaged  in  fishing  would  be  prohibited  from  entering  a  Cana- 
dian port  "for  any  purpose  whatever"  except  to  obtain  wood  or  water,  to  re- 
pair damages,  or  to  seek  shelter.  Whether  it  would  be  liable  to  the  extreme 
penalty  of  confiscation  for  a  breach  of  this  i^rohibition  in  a  trifling  and  harmless 
histance  might  be  quite  another  question. 

Such  a  literal  construction  is  best  refuted  by  considering  its  preposterous  con- 
sequences. If  a  vessel  enters  a  port  to  post  a  letter,  or  send  a  telegram,  or  buy 
a  newspaper,  to  obtain  a  physician  in  case  of  illness,  or  a  surgeon  in  case  of  ac- 
cident, to  land  or  bring  ofl'  a  passenger,  or  even  to  lend  assistance  to  the  inhabit- 
ants in  Are,  flood,  or  pestilence,  it  would,  upon  this  construction,  be  held  to  vio- 
late the  treaty  stipulations  maintained  between  two  enlightened  maritime  and 
most  friendly  nations,  whose  ports  are  freely  open  to  each  other  in  all  other 
places  and  under  all  other  circumstances.  If  a  vessel  is  not  engaged  in  fishings 
she  may  enter  all  ports ;  but  if  employed  in  Ashing,  not  denied  to  be  lawful,  she 


u 


I'i    I 


■'      '    -I 
I 


is  excluded,  thoMKli  on  the  most  innocent  errand.  She  may  buy  water,  bnt not 
food  or  medicine;  wood,  but  not  coal.  She  may  repnir  riKKinKi  but  not  pur- 
chuse  a  new  rope,  tliouKh  the  inhabitants  are  desirous  to  sell  it.  If  she  even.en- 
tered  the  port  (having;  no  other  business)  to  report  heiself  to  the  custuni-hoiise 
AS  the  vessel  in  question  is  now  seized  for  not  doing:,  she  would  be  equally 
within  the  interdiction  of  the  treaty.  If  it  be  said  these  are  extreme  instniioes 
of  violation  of  the  treaty  not  likely  to  be  Insisted  on,  I  reply  that  no  one  of  them 
is  more  extreme  than  the  one  relied  upon  in  this  case, 

Mr.  President,  the  question  comes,  What  are  the  Canadians  after? 
Why  have  they  boarded  within  two  years  more  than  two  thousand 
American  fishing  vessels?  Why  have  they  gone  upon  American  ves- 
sels in  number  more  than  two  thousand,  charging  them  with  violation 
t)t' either  international  law,  or  the  treaty,  or  local  law  ?  For  what  pur- 
pose ?  It  has  been  asserted  here,  and  it  is  not  denied,  that  it  was  for 
ihe  purpose  of  compelling  us  to  accept  a  reciprocity  treaty  from  them, 
•M  they  did  getone  from  us  in  1854  and  1871.  The  Senator  from  Maine 
[Mr.  Fkye]  asserted  that;,  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Morgan] 
■admitted  it;  but  we  have  authority  equally  good.  The  Democratic  Ad- 
ministration has  asserted  it  and  declared  that  that  was  the  purpose. 
Mr.  Bayard,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Phelps,  of  February  8,  1887,  amongst 
other  things,  said: 

At  page  15  of  the  printed  inclosure  and  in  the  last  paraf^rapli  will  be  found  the 
explicit  avowal  of  claim  hy  the  Canadian  Quveriiiiienl  to  employ  the  conven- 
tion of  ISlSasan  InstrumcMitof  interference  with  the  exercise  ol°npcn-Rea  t1^«hin|f 
by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  to  give  it  such  a  construction  as  will  enable 
the  fishermen  ot  the  provinces  i>etter  to  competent  less  "disadvantago  in  the 
markets  of  the  United  States"  in  the  pursuit  of  tlie  deep-sea  fisheries. 

At  the  outset  of  this  discussion,  in  my  note  to  Sir  Lionel  West,  of  May  10, 188G, 
I  said: 

"The  question,  therefore,  arises  whether  such  a  construction  is  admissible  as 
would  convert  the  treaty  of  1818  from  being  an  instrumentality  for  the  protec- 
iion  of  the  inshore  fisheries  along  the  described  parts  of  the  Uritish  American 
coasts  into  a  pretext  or  means  of  obstructing  the  business  of  dee|>-8ea  fishing  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  of  interrupting  and  destroying  the  commer- 
'Cial  intercourse  that  since  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  independent  of  any  treaty  what- 
ever, has  grown  up  and  now  exists  under  the  concurrentand  friendly  laws  and 
mercantile  regulations  of  the  respective  countries." 

Wlien  I  wrote  this  I  hardly  expected  that  the  motives  I  suggested,  rather  than 
imputed,  would  be  admitted  by  the  authorities  of  the  provinces,  and  was  en- 
tirely unprepared  for  a  distinct  avowal  thereof,  notonlyas  regards  theobstrno- 
tion  of  deep-sea  fishing  operations  by  our  fishermen,  but  also  in  respect  of  their 
independent  commercial  intercourse,  yet  it  will  be  seen  that  the  (Canadian  min- 
ister of  justice  avers  that  it  is  "most  prejudicial"  to  the  intercuts  of  Ihe  provinces 
"  that  United  States  fishermen  should  be  permitted  to  come  into  their  harbors 
on  any  pretext." 

The  correspondence  now  sent  to  you,  together  with  otiiers  relating  to  the 
same  subject  that  has  taken  place  since  the  President's  message  of  Dcembcr  8, 
communicating  the  same  to  Congress,  will  be  laid  before  Congress  without  de- 
lay, and  will  assist  the  two  Houses  materially  in  the  legislation  proposed  fur 
the  security  of  the  rights  of  American  fishing  vessels  under  treaty  and  interna- 
tional law  and  comity. 
I  am,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD 

Mr.  Phelps,  the  American  minister,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Rosebery  of 
June  2,  1886,  which  will  be  found  in  Senate  Executive  Document  No. 
113,  page  415,  amongst  other  things,  said: 

The  real  source  of  the  difHculty  that  has  arisen  is  well  understood.  It  Is  to 
be  found  in  the  irritation  that  has  taken  place  among  a  portion  of  the  Canadian 
people  on  account  of  the  termination  by  the  United  States  Government  of  the 
■treaty  of  Washington  on  the  1st  of  July  last,  whereby  flsh  imported  from  Can- 
ada into  the  United  States,  and  which  so  long  as  that  treaty  remained  in  force 
was  admitted  ft-ee,  is  now  liable  to  the  import  duty  provided  by  the  general 
revenue  laws,  and  the  opinion  appears  to  have  gained  ground  in  Canada  that 
the  United  States  may  be  driven,  by  harassing  and  annoying  their  fishermen, 
into  the  adoption  of  a  new  treaty  by  which  Canadian  flsh  shall  be  admitted  free. 

He  adds: 

It  is  not  necessary  to  say  that  this  scheme  is  likely  to  prove  as  mistaken  in 


water,  but  not 
,  but  not  pwr- 
f  she  even  en- 
lusloni-hoiise 
Id  be  equally 
eme  instjinces 

10  one  of  them 

dians  after? 
NO  thousand 
merican  ves- 
ith  violatioa 
or  what  pur- 
lat  it  was  for 
'  from  them, 
r  from  Maine 
r.  Morgan] 
raoeratic  Ad- 
the  purpose. 
387,  amongst 

ill  be  found  the 
)y  the  coiiven- 
pen-sea  flsliiiiK 

11  as  will  enable 
vantage  in  the 
eries. 
ofMaylO,188C, 

a  admissible  as 
for  the  protec- 
itish  American 
)-8ea  flsIiinB  by 
ig  the  comnier- 
ny  treaty  wUal- 
endly  laws  and 

ted,  rather  than 
es,  and  was  en- 
rds  theobstruo- 
respect  of  their 
Canadian  niin- 
sf  the  province."! 
;o  their  harbors 

relating  to  the 
e  of  Dcember  8, 
ess  without  de- 
)n  proposed  for 
ity  and  interna- 


F.  BAYARD 

rd  Roaebery  of 
Document  No. 


rstood.  It  is  to 
of  the  Canadian 
i^ernment  of  the 
lorted  from  Can- 
;mained  in  force 
I  by  the  general 
1  in  Canada  that 
their  fishermen, 
ie  admitted  free. 


as  mistaken  In 


16 

polioy  as  it  is  indefensible  in  principle.  In  terminating  the  treaty  of  Washing- 
ton the  United  Slates  were  simply  ejfercisinKa  right  expressly  reservod  lo  both 
parties  by  the  treaty  itself,  and  of  the  exercise  of  which  by  either  party  neither 
can  complain.  They  will  not  be  coerced  by  wanton  injury  into  tlie  uaking  of 
a  new  one,  nor  would  a  negotiation  that  had  its  origin  in  mutual  irritation  be 
promising  of  success.  The  question  now  is,  not  what  fresh  treaty  may  or  might 
be  desirable,  but  what  is  the  true  and  just  construction  us  between  the  two  na- 
tions of  the  treaty  that  already  exists. 

That  was  the  sentiment  of  the  American  Senate  as  expressed  in  the 
Frye  resolution,  and  which  found  advocacy  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Chamber,  notably  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  who  declared  over 
and  over  again  in  his  speech,  as  I  propo.se  to  quote  before  I  quit,  that 
we  needed  no  new  treaty;  that  all  we  needed  and  all  we  wanted  was  a 
proper  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  which  he  declared  was  not 
difficult  to  make;  and  he  went  further  and  ."^aid,  as  I  will  show,  that 
if  it  was  left  to  him  to  add  to  it,  he  knew  nothing  that  he  could  add 
that  would  make  it  more  certain. 

Again,  on  page  'M  of  the  .same  document,  Mr.  Phelps  to  the  Marquis 
of  Salisbury,  in  his  letter  of  January  iiG,  1887,  said: 

The  United  States  Government  is  not  able  to  concur  in  the  favorable  view 
taken  by  Lord  Iddcsleigh  of  the  efl'orts  of  the  Canadian  Government  "to  pro- 
mote a  friendly  negotiation."  That  the  conduct  of  that  (iovernment  has  been 
directed  to  obtaining  a  revision  of  the  existing  treaty  is  not  to  be  doubted;  but 
its  ett'orts  have  been  of  such  a  cliaracter  as  to  preclude  the  prospect  of  a  success- 
ful noKotiation  so  long  as  they  continue,  and  seriously  to  endanger  the  friendly 
relations  between  the  United  Slates  and  Great  Hritain. 

Aside  from  the  question  as  to  the  right  of  American  vessels  to  purchase  bait 
in  Canadian  ports,  such  a  construction  has  been  given  to  tlie  treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  as  amounts  virtually  to  a  declaration  of  almost 
complete  non-intercourse  with  American  vessels.  The  usual  comity  between 
Iriendly  nations  lias  been  refused  .n  their  case,  and  in  one  instance,  at  least,  the 
ordinary  ofilces  of  humanity.  The  treaty  ol  fricudsliip  and  amity  which,  in  re- 
turn for  vcr.v  important  concessions  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain,  re- 
served to  the  American  vessels  certain  specilled  privileges  has  been  construed 
to  exclude  them  from  all  other  intercourse  common  to  civilized  life  and  to  uni- 
versal uuiritime  usage  among  nations  not  at  war,  as  well  as  from  the  right  to 
toucli  II nd  trade  accorded  to  all  other  vessels. 

And  ((uite  aside  from  any  question  arising  upon  construction  of  the  treaty, 
the  provisions  ef  the  custom-house  acts  and  regulations  liave  been  systematic- 
ally enforced  against  American  ships  for  alleged  petty  and  technical  violations 
of  legal  requirements  in  a  manner  so  unreasonable,  unfriendly,  and  unjust  as 
to  renderthe privileges  accorded  by  the  treaty  practically  nugatory. 

•  «  *  *  *  *  • 

It  has  been  seen  also  that  the  term  "any  purpose  not  permitted  by  treaty"  is 
held  by  that  Government  to  comprehend  every  possible  act  of  human  inter- 
course, except  only  the  four  purposes  named  in  the  treaty— shelter,  repairs, 
wood,  and  water. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  recent  act,  therefore,  and  the  Canadian  interpre- 
tation of  the  treaty,  any  American  fishing  vessel  that  may  venture  into  a  Cana- 
dian harbor,  or  may  have  occasion  to  pass  through  the  very  extensive  waters 
thus  comprehended,  may  be  seized  at  the  disaretion  of  any  one  of  numerous 
subordinate  officers,  carried  into  port,  subjected  to  search  and  the  examination  of 
her  master  upon  oath,  her  voyage  broken  up,  and  the  vesse'  and  cargo  confis- 
cated, if  it  shall  be  determined  by  the  local  authorities  that  she  has  ever  even 
posted  or  received  a  letter  or  landed  a  passenger  in  any  part  of  Her  Majesty's 
dominions  in  America, 

In  a  letter  of  Mr.  Phelps  to  Earl  Iddesleigh,  September  11,  1886, 
page  433,  our  minister  said: 

The  conduct  of  the  provincial  officers  toward  these  vessels  was  therefore  not 
merely  unfriendly  and  injurious,  but  in  clear  and  plain  violation  of  the  terms 
of  the  treaty.  And  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  reparation  for  the  losses  sus- 
tained by  it  to  the  owners  of  the  ve<!sel8  will  be  claimed  by  the  United  States 
Government  on  their  behalf  as  soon  as  the  amount  can  be  accurately  ascertained. 

It  will  be  observed  that  interference  with  American  fishing  vessels  by  Cana- 
dian authorities  is  becoming  more  and  more  frequent,  and  more  and  more  fla- 
grant in  its  disregard  of  treaty  obligations  and  of  the  principles  of  comity  and 
friendly  intercourse.  The  forbearance  and  moderation  of  the  United  States 
Government  in  respect  to  them  appear  to  have  been  misunderstood  and  to  Lave 
been  taken  advantage  of  by  the  provincial  government.    The  course  of  the 


ill     ' 


i     '    ! 


r '  I  I 


ITiiitctl  Sttitf^  ins  hcpii  dictated,  not  only  by  an  imxiiaiH  cU-Hire  to  proaerve 
frfciitlly  i'«il»lii>iiM,  l)iil  hy  ilie  full  conlldi'ni'o  that  tin-  iiite r!H>>itU)n  of  Her  MaJ- 
«Hly'M  (joveriiiiient  woulil  he  hiicIi  as  to  put  a  Htop  to  the  traiiHai-tion'<  coin- 

Jthiined  of, uud  to  ull'.irU  ri^'paiiitioii  for  what  Iihh  already  (alien  place.  The  Hiib- 
ect  liitH  beeoine  one  ot  t^rave  importance,  and  I  earnestly  Hollvit  tlu>  ininicdiate 
attention  of  your  lonlsliip  to  the  (|iu>Htioii  it  involvcH,  and  to  the  vie\vn  pre- 
eeiited  in  my  former  note  and  in  those  of  the  Hecrt'lary  of  .state. 

Ayain  on  June  2,  1886,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  lioseltery,  Mr.  Phelp.s 
UHed  this  language,  on  page  419  of  the  doennient  to  which  I  have 
already  reCeired: 

From  all  the  circunistancen  attendin);  thi^  cnsc.aiid  other  recent  eaxcs  like  it, 
it  seems  to  me  very  apparent  that  the  Hei/.urc  was  not  made  lor  the  purpose  of 
enforcing  any  riKht  or  redressing  any  wnrnK'  As  I  have  before  remarked,  it 
is  not  pretended  thiUthc  vessel  had  been  ciiKaLCC'd  in  ilshiu};,  nr  was  intending 
to  fish  in  the  prohibited  waters,  or  thiit  it  had  done  or  was  iiitendinK  to  do  any 
other  injurious  aut.  Jt  was  proceediuK  upon  its  reu'ular  and  lawtul  business  of 
flshing  in  the  deep  sea.  It  had  received  no  re(|uest.  and  of  course  eould  have 
disregarded  no  request,  to  depart,  and  was,  in  fact,  dcpartiiiH;  when  seized;  nor 
had  its  master  refused  to  answer  any  ((uestioiis  put  by  the  autJiorities.  It  had 
violated  no  existing  law,  and  had  incurred  no  penalty  that  any  known  statute 
imposed. 

It  seems  to  me  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  this  and  other  similar 
seizures  were  made  by  the  Canadian  authorities  for  ihe  deliberate  (lurpnse  of 
harassing  and  embarrassing  the  American  lishing  vessels  in  the  pursuit  of  their 
lawful  employment.  And  the  injury,  which  would  have  been  a  serious  one,  if 
committed  under  a  mistake,  is  very  much  anKravated  by  the  motives  which  ap- 
pear to  have  prompted  it. 

I  am  instructed  by  my  (lovernmentearnestly  to  protest  nirninst  these  procecd- 
inRS  as  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  treaty  of  IHI.S,  and  altotfetlur  inconsistent 
with  the  friendly  relations  hitherto  exist int;  between  t  lie  United  Htates  and  Jler 
Majesty'sGovernment ;  to  reciuest  that  the  David  .1.  .Vdanis,  and  the  other  Ameri- 
can fishing;  vessels  now  under  seizure  in  Canadian  ports,  be  immediately  re- 
leased, and  that  proper  orders  may  be  i.ssued  to  prevent  similnr  proeecdinu's  in 
the  future.  And  I  am  also  instructed  to  inform  you  tli:it  the  United  .states  will 
hold  Her  Majesty's  Government  responsible  for  all  losses  whicli  may  be  sus- 
tained by  American  citizen.s  in  the  dispossession  of  their  property  growing  out 
of  the  search,  seizure,  detention,  or  sale  of  their  ves.sels  lawfully  within  tlie 
territorial  waters  of  British  North  America. 

The  real  source  of  the  dilliculty  that  has  arisen  is  well  imderstood.  Itis  to  be 
found  in  the  irritation  that  has  taken  ])l;iee  among  a  portion  of  the  Canadian 
people  on  account  of  the  termination  l>y  the  riiited  .-^tates  Government  of  the 
treaty  of  Washington  on  the  l.st  of  July  last,  whereby  llsh  imported  from  t^an- 
ada  into  the  United  .States,  and  which  so  long  as  that  treaty  was  in  force  was  ad- 
mitted free,  is  now  liable  to  the  import  duly  j)rovi(led  by  the  general  revenue 
laws,  and  the  o|>Jnion  appears  to  have  gained  ground  in  Canada  that  the  United 
States  may  be  driven,  by  harassing  and  annoying  their  IJsliermen,  into  tiie  adop- 
tion of  a  new  treaty  by  which  Canadian  lisli  shall  be  admitted  free. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  say  that  this  scheme  is  likely  to  prove  as  mistaken  in 
policy  a.s  it  is  indefensible  in  iirineiple.  In  terminating  tlie  treaty  of  Wai-hing- 
ton  the  United  .States  were  simply  exercising  a  riglil  expressly  reserved  to  both 
parties  by  the  treaty  itself,  and  of  the  exercise  of  which  by  eitlier  party  neither 
can  complain.  They  will  not  be  coerced  l)y  wanton  injury  into  the  mak^igof 
a  new  one.  Nor  would  a  negotiation  that  had  its  origin  in  mutual  irritation  lie 
promising  of  success.  The  question  now  is,  not  what  fresh  treaty  may  or  might 
be  desiraljle,  but  what  is  tlie  true  and  jn.st  construction,  as  between  the  two  na- 
tions, of  the  treaty  that  already  exists? 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  approncliing  this  question  in  the  most 
friendly  spirit,  can  not  doubt  that  it  will  be  met  liy  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment 
in  the  same  spirit,  and  feels  every  conliilenee  that  the  action  of  Iler  Jlajesty's 
Government  in  the  premises  will  be  such  as  to  maintain  the  cordial  relations 
between  the  two  countries  that  have  so  long  happily  prevailed. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

E.  J.  PHEI.PS. 

Mr.  Pre.sident,  it  can  pot  be  denied  in  re^rard  to  these  outrages  per- 
petrated upon  the  Aiiiericun  lishennen,  by  which  they  have  ])een  seizeil 
and  taken  into  Hriti.sh  ports  and  outraf^ed  generally — conduct  of  which 
the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Manning,  in  a  letter  that  he 
addressed  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1H8(>,  declared  over  his  offi- 
cial sisrnature  was  brutal ;  that  has  been  characterized  by  the  Secretary 
o  •'  '  'm-  our  minister  to  London  to  the  very  extreme  of  diplo- 


;  I 


I 

i 
t 


17 


to  preserve 

of  Her  Mftj- 

,ic-tion-t  I'lmi- 

le.    Tl>e  mib- 

0  iiniiu'»Hiito 
u  views  pre- 

Mr.   Phelps 
lich  I  have 

oa-es  like  it, 
le  piirpone  of 

reiiinrltotl.  il 
k'usiiitemliiiK 
iiiK  to  do  any 
il  bll«im•H^^  of 
se  could  have 
;ii  m-izod;  nor 
ritioH.  Itlind 
nown  statute 

1  otlierHiniilur 
ivte  (lurpose  of 
iiir«uitor»lieir 
serious  one,  if 
ivcs  whieli  ap- 

these  proceod- 
ir  ini'onHi><ti'nt 
States  and  Her 
11- oilier  Aiueri- 
nnu'dintely  re- 
proceodinnH  in 
iled  States  will 
;li  may  be  sus- 
tv  gi-owintr  out 
lily  within  the 

Qod.  Itistohe 
f  the  Canrtdiau 
ornnient  of  tlie 
rted  from  CUit\- 
in  force  was  ail- 
cMieral  revenue 
that  the  United 
n.intollieadop- 

ree. 

as  mistaken  in 
ftlyof  Wai-hiiiK- 
reserved  to  liolh 
ler  partv  ncitlicr 
o  the  niakj^iK  of 
tual  irritation  lie 
ity  may  or  mijjht 
veen  the  two  mi- 
ction in  the  most 
ly's  CJovernment 
of  Her  JNlaiesty's 

cordial  relations 
[I. 

:.  J.  PHEIPS. 
se  outrages  per- 
lave  been  seized 
>uduct  of  which 
V  letter  that  he 
ed  over  his  ofli- 
)y  the  Secretary 
xtreinc  of  diplo- 


matic laugnaKe  as  being  in  violation  of  treaty,  contrary  to  good  morals, 
and  an  indignityto  this  great  and  independent  people — it  can  not  bede- 
nied  (because  you  have  the  authority  of  the  Administration  as  well  as 
the  conHen.sus  of  all  that  have  been  interested  and  have  studied  and 
discussed  the  question)  that  this  movement  is  not  forthepuipo.se  of 
enforcinu  the  treaty  . stipulations  of  1818,  but  to  compel  us  to  make  a 
treaty,  whether  we  will  or  not,  that  they  think  is  in  the  interest  of 
Canada  and  the  British  dominion  on  our  north. 

Can  we  art'ord  under  such  circumstances  to  negotiate?  Could  we  af- 
ford to  call  a  commission  to  our  national  capital  to  consider  subjects  of 
dispute  when  the  Secretary  of  State  himself  is  on  record  and  his  min- 
ister is  on  record  that  these  are  outrages  perpetrated  for  the  purpose  of 
creating  a  necessity  in  the  minds  of  the  American  people  for  a  new 
treaty  ?  Was  not  Mr.  Phelps  right  when  he  said  we  do  not  want  any 
new  treaty  under  existing  circumstances?  Was  he  not  correct  when 
he  said  it  is  not  now  a  question  what  kind  of  treaty  is  desirable  pro- 
vided we  were  in  a  condition  to  treat,  but  what  is  the  proper  construc- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  1818? 

Hut,  Mr.  President,  I  say,  and  believe  the  American  people  will  sny 
with  one.voice  when  they  understand  this  question,  thatit  was  beneath 
the  dignity  of  the  United  States  to  enter  into  negotiation  until  at  least 
the  other  side  should  have  ceased  to  commit  these  grievances  against 
us.  We  should  not  complain  of  an  honestconstructiou,  although  wrojig, 
but  when  the  Secretary  of  State  tells  them  and  his  minister  tells  them 
that  they  know  that  this  is  but  a  pretense  on  their  part;  that  there  is  not 
any  such  construction  in  their  view  of  the  law;  that  these  are  not  pro- 
ceedings instigated  by  a  desire  to  protect  their  rights,  but  to  inflict  in- 
juries upon  us  to  compel  us  to  pursue  a  course  that  they  think  will  inure 
to  their  benelit,  I  say  that  we  can  not  and  ought  not  to  have  treated, 
and  so  said  the  Administration.  Mr.  Phelps,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Iddes- 
leigh  on  September  11,  1886,  says,  on  page  41^3: 

The  proposal  in  your  lordship's  note  that  a  revision  of  the  treaty  stipnlationa 
beariiiK  upon  the  subject  of  the  (islicrics  should  be  attempted  by  the  Govern- 
ment upon  the  basis  of  mutual  concessions  is  one  that  under  other  circumstances 
would  merit  and  receive  serious  consideration.  Such  a  revision  wa.sdcsired  by 
the  Government  of  the  I'nited  Slates  before  the  present  dispulc.->  luose,  and 
when  there  was  a  reasonable  prospect  that  it  mip^ht  have  been  carried  into 
efl'ect.  Various  reasons  ijot  within  its  control  n<iw  concur  to  make  the  jiresent 
time  inopportune  for  that  purpose.and  greatly  to  diminish  the  hope  of  a  tavorable 
result  to  such  an  eflfort.  Not  the  least  of  them  is  the  irritation  produced  in  the 
United  States  by  the  course  of  the  f 'aiiadian  Government,  and  the  belief  thereby 
eiiKendered  that  a  new  treaty  is  altemptpd  to  be  forced  upon  the  United  States 
Government. 

It  seems  apparent  that  the  questions  now  presented  and  the  transactions  that 
are  the  subject  of  present  complaint  must  be  considered  and  adjusted  upon  the 
provisions  of  the  existing  treaty,  and  upon  the  construction  that  is  to  be  given 
to  them. 

A  justconstruction  of  these  stipulations, and  such  as  would  consist  with  the 
dignity,  the  interests,  and  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two  countries,  ought  not 
to  be  difMcult,  and  can  doubtless  be  arrived  at. 

Later,  on  January  26,  1887,  page  437,  speaking  of  this  same  subject, 
whether  the  Government  of  the  United  States  could  now  treat,  he 
said: 

The  reasons  why  a  revision  of  the  treaty  of  1818  can  not  now,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  United  States  Government,  be  hopefully  undertaken,  and  which  are  set 
fortli  in  my  note  to  Lord  Iddesleigh  of  September  11,  have  increased  in  force 
since  tliat  note  was  written. 

Thus,  Mr.  President,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  Administration 
itscli',  that  until  redress  for  these  outrages  had  been  in  some  way  ob- 

TSLLEB 2 


1^' 


1)1;;  " 


18 

tained  by  us,  or  they  lnul  becMi  overlooked  or  forgiven  at  the  rei|ue8tof 
the  people  who  coiumitted  them,  wu  ought  not  to  huve  any  treaty  at 
all. 

I  must  retrace  my  steps  a  little,  and  come  baek  to  tiie  condition  of 
ad'aiis  when  the  Administration  came  into  power. 

As  I  said  before,  this  Administration  was  met  by  an  expiring  treaty 
ou.Iuly  1,  IH8.).  Ki^litdaysalter  this  Administration  came  into  power 
the  British  minister  addressed  a  most  remarkable  note  to  the  Secre- 
lory  of  State. 

Congress  liad  declared  that  the  treaty  of  1H71  sliould  come  to  an  end; 
there  had  been  i)rttctical  unanimity  everywhere  on  the  subject;  and 
yet  the,  British  minister  on  the  Pith  day  of  March,  IHK"),  ei^jht  daya 
after  the  Administration  came  into  power,  makes  a  sH}»;;estion  to  the 
Administration  substantially  that  Con^^ress  did  not  know  what  it 
wanted,  that  the  f?reat  Government  of  tlie  United  States  represented  in 
its  legislative  department  was  not  (•ai)able  of  determining  these  ques- 
tions as  they  ought  to  be,  and  that  the  State  Department  and  he  might 
be  able  to  work  out  something  that  would  be  better.  Can  anybody 
believe,  does  anybody  believe  that  tliis  letter  which  I  shall  read  could 
ever  huve  been  submitted  by  Mr.  West  of  liis  own  volition?  Would 
there  have  been  that  temerity  on  the  part  of  any  representative  from 
abroad  to  have  said  to  an  exe<!utive  ollicer  of  the  United  States,  "Your 
Government  has  made  a  mistake  in  a  matter  of  internal  policy,"  with 
which  he  had  no  concern?  J  think  it  may  bo  lairly  presumed  that  he 
got  his  idea  from  the  Administration,  that  they  were  prepared  to  ne- 
gotiate upon  tills  subject  with  a  view  to  a  change  of  status.  He  said — 
1  read  from  page  484  of  the  same  document: 

1. — Mr.  West's  iiicmoi-dnilmn  of  3l(irch  12,1885. 
[Mciuuriiiuliiin. — C'oiifidentinl.] 

The  fishery  cluuses  of  tlie  treivty  of  WiisliiiiKtoii  of  1S7I  will  i  xpin;  on  (he  l.xt 
of  July  next.  It  Ims  heen  repiv.sonted  hy  tht  C.inu<liiin<ioveriiini'iit  that  niiu'li 
Inconvenience  i-i  likely  to  tirif^e  in  conHciiuence,  unlcNN  some  iiKreenient  uiin  l)e 
uiiide  for  i\n  cxu-iision  of  the  period. 

When  the  tline  corncs  (1st  of  .Inly  next)  Anierieun  ^hips  will  lie  net unlly  en- 
gafced  in  lisliinvr  wilhin  the  terntoriiil  waters  of  the  Dominion.  These  vessels 
will  have  been  lltled  oiii  for  the  season's  lishinj;  and  huve  made  all  their  nsiial 
arrnnnements  for  following  it  up  until  't8  termination  in  theiintinini.  If,  under 
these  eirt'iMiislaiiv<'s.  the  proviniial  or  niunieipal  anthorilies  in  C'aniidii  were  to 
insist  upon  their  strict  riyrlits,  and  to  compel  siieh  vessels,  under  |)ain  of  seizure, 
to  desist  from  lisliint;,  eonsiilerable  hardship  would  he  occasioned  to  the  own- 
ers, and  a  feeliutj:  of  bitterness  engenilered  on  both  aides,  which  it  is  clearly  the 
interest  of  tioth  (iovernments  to  avert. 

It  seems,  therefore,  desirable,  in  order  to  avoid  such  possible  complicntioiis, 
that  both  (Jtovernments  nhould  come  to  an  a^treement  under  which  the  clauses 
uiight  lie  in  efVecl  extended  until  the  Ist  of  January,  1886. 

If  this  were  done  the  existing  state  of  thing:'  would  come  to  an  end  at  a  date 
between  the  flshery  season  of  188.5  and  that  o:  188*).  and  an  alirnpt  transition  at 
a  moment  when  fishery  operations  were  beingearried  on  would  be  thus  avoided. 

WA8HINGT0.V,  Mnrch  12,  1885. 

The  solicitude  of  the  Canadian  Government  for  our  fishermen  was 
hardly  in  keeping  with  their  subsequent  conduct,  hardly  in  keeping 
with  their  conduct  years  ago,  and  it  can  not  be  misunderstood  that  this 
negotiation  was  commenced  and  carried  on  for  an  entirely  dilferent 
purpose,  as  I  shall  "show  in  a  moment  as  briefly  as  I  can,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  from  us  that  which  the  Canadian  Government  had  been 
demanding,  a  reciprocity  treaty,  and  that  the  Administration  were 
parties  to  this,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  State  understood  it.  His  letters 
show  that  it  was  not  a  simple  question  of  fishing,  bat  it  was  more 
than  that. 

On  the  22d  day  of  April,  1885,  Mr,  Bayard  replied.     Whether  there 


4 

i 


:ln 


V.) 


had  been  any  other  correspondence  I  know  not,  except  tliat  it  is  not 
found  in  the  diplonmtiu  corruHiwiulenito  sent  to  tlie  Heuute. 
2.— J/r.  niiyiiiU  U>  Mr.  Heat,  Ai>rU  22,  IntC. 
[Meiiioruntliim  of  April  22,  1885.— Hertoiiul.] 

Dki'artmknt  op  Htatk,  Wasliinyt'in,  Ai>ril  22, 1885. 
Dear  Mr.  Wkst;   I  liave  on  several  ocoaHioim  lately,  in  cdiivermition,  ao- 
qiiainted  you  with  my  intcrext  In  tlic  llsheriuii  nieniorandum  wlilcli  ucvompa- 
nied  your  perBonul  letter  of  Miirc-li  12. 

Hoveral  informnl  taIkH  I  huve  had  with  8ir  AmbroHe  8lira  have  enabled  mn 
tnforninliite  the  vIewH  of  thin  Government  upon  the  propiiHitionniiido  in  behali' 
oftheDominicmHndthe  Province  of  Newfoundland,  and  I  lake  pleasure  in  lianil- 
inK  you  herewith  a  memorandum  enibodyinK  the  reHuUn.  If  tliiH  Huits,  1  shall 
be  happy  to  contlrm  the  arrangement  by  un  exchange  of  notes  at  your  earliest 
convenience. 

1  am,  my  dear  Mr.  West,  very  sincerely  yours, 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 
The  Hon.  L.  S,  Sackvim.e  West,  etc. 

I  do  not  know  very  innch  about  the  intricacies  of  diplomacy  and  I 
do  not  know  very  much  about  the  nejrotiation  of  treaties,  hut  it  struck 
me  as  a  very  singular  proposition  tliat  the  Secretary  of  State,  upon  a 
subject  which  had  engrossed  tlie  attention  of  all  his  predecessors  for 
several  yi-ars  on  and  oil",  that  had  enisrossed  the  attention  of  ConKress. 
should  have  needed  the  views  of  Sir  Ambrose  Sliea,  wlio,  I  understand, 
is  a  member  of  the  cabinet  of  one  of  the  liritisli  provinces.  At  all 
events  the  memorandum  is  the  result  of  inlbrmal  talks  of  the  Secretary 
with  Sir  Ambrose  Shea.  How  much  of  it  is  the  work  of  Sir  Ambrose 
8hea  and  how  much  of  it  is  the  work  of  the  Administration  I  do  not 
know.     So  I  am  unable  to  give  the  proper  credit. 

I  liud  on  June  13,  1885,  auother  memorandum: 

3.— Mr.  West's  memoranda  of  June  13, 1885. 

[Memoranda.] 

Tt  Is  proposed  to  state  in  notes  according  temporary  arranRements  respecting 
flshericH  tliat  an  agreement  has  been  arrived  at  under  circuniHtnnces  aftbrding 
prospect  of  negotiation  for  development  and  extension  of  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  British  North  America — 

That  is  the  whole  question  in  a  nut-shell — 

afTording  prospect  of  negotiation  for  development  and  extension  of  trade  be- 
tween the  United  8tate»  and  Britisli  North  America. 

I  submit  that  means  reciprocity  and  does  not  mean  anything  else. 
This  was  the  initiatory  step  towards  a  reciprocity  treaty  with  Great 
Ikitain.     Mr.  West  added: 

The  government  of  Newfoundland  do  not  make  refunding  of  duties  a  condi- 
tion of  their  acceptance  of  the  propo><ed  agreement,  but  they  rely  on  It  having 
due  consideration  before  the  international  commission  which  may  be  ap- 
pointed. 

To  that  Mr.  Bayard  replied,  June  19,  1885: 

IConfldential.] 
Department  op  State,  Washington,  June  19, 1885. 

Mv  Dear  Mr.  West:  I  assume  that  the  two  confldential  memoranda  you 
banded  to  me  on  the  13th  instant  embrace  the  acceptance  by  the  Dominion  and 
the  UriliHh-American  coast  provinces  of  the  general  features  of  my  memoran- 
dum of  April  21,  concerning  a  temporary  arrangement  rewpecting  the  fisheries  ■ 
with  the  understanding  expressed  on  their  side  that  the  "agreement  has  beeil 
arrived  at  under  circumstances  affording  prospect  of  negotiation  for  develop- 
ment and  extension  of  trade  between  the  United  States  and  British  North 
America." 

To  such  a  contingent  understanding  I  can  have  no  objection.  Indeed,  I  re- 
gard it  as  covered  by  the  statement  in  my  memorandum  of  May  21,  that  the  ar- 


• ,,:  I 


II . 


ii ' 


ifii 


rauKcintnt  therein  contcmpliti'd  would  be  renclicd  "  with  tlir  nndrrHlniidiiiK 
lliiit  IIm>  I'l'CMiiltuil  <iI  iliii  I  iiitud  Hliiten  would  liriuK  l>i<*  wlictle  <|Ui>Mtlii>i  t>r  Die 
lislierifM  buforu  (^iiiKreHH  ul  itH  lu-xl  H<>>iHi<)n  in  Dfi'eniiiur,  mid  ruco'.iiiiond  tliu 
;i|ip<iintni<>iit  of  a  vituiniiHHion  in  wliioii  lliu  (JovitrnnifutN  of  tli-  I'nitfd  HluluH 
itiid  of  (JrcHt  lirituin  Nhould  lie  reHpcctively  rt>|ireM<-iitcd,  wiiicli  foininiMMioii 
vliould  bf  <'linrKe<l  witli  tliu  cniiMidcnition  mid  Mettlciiieiit  ii|inii  ii  JuHt,  i>(|uitiibli\ 
and  hoiiorubic  iMtniM,  of  Uw  entire  i|iieNtion  of  tlie  lixiiliiK  rltcliln  of  llio  I  wo  (iov- 
(  rnuienlH  Hiid  tlivir  reHiicclivo  citizuim  on  tliu  coiiHtM  uf  tliu  United  HtutcH  and 
l»ritinii  Noi-tli  Atiierleti.'' 

Tlie  c(|uilli'H  of  liie  <|uer«tion  heinff  before  Hueli  n  mixed  c<ininiiHHion  woidd 
donlitlesM  linve  tile  fiiileHt  liilitiide  of  cxitrcHsion  and  treiitnient  on  liotli  MideM; 
iin<l  tlie  purpoNe  in  view  lieiiiK  (lie  iniiintenuneo  of  Kood  nei);liliorliooil  mid  in- 
teri'OurHe  between  tlie  two  eountrieH,  tlie  reeoniiiiendiitioii  of  iiiiy  int'iiMures 
'.vliieli  tlie  eoMiiniHMion  uiiKht  deem  neeeNNitry  to  nttulii  tlioMe  eiidH  would  Neeiii 
to  fall  within  ilH  province,  and  hucIi  reconiniendiitioim  could  not  full  to  rcreive 
attentive  coiiHideriition.  I  inn  not,  therefore,  prepiiretl  to  Mtiile  liniitM  to  tlio 
pn>po<4al8  to  be  lirouKht  forward  in  the  8UKKer<tcd  coinniiHHion  on  bcliulf  of  either 
party. 

I  believe  thin  Ntntenient  will  he  aatinfnctory  to  you,  and  I  Nhould  he  plenncd 
let  be  informed  at  tlie  eiirliest  day  practicable  of  your  acceptance  of  the  iiiider- 
^tandinK  on  behalf  of  Hriti»<h  North  America;  and  by  tlii.s  HJiiiple  excliiiiiKe  of 
noteH  and  nieniorunda  the  aKreeiiient  will  be  completed  in  HeiiHon  to  eiialile  the 
f'lesideiit  to  niiike  thereHiilt  publicly  known  to  the  citizens  euKUKed  in  the  AhIi- 
InK  on  the  HriliMli-.Vmerican  Atlantic  coiiHt. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  hiKheat  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  nervant, 

T.  F.  UAYAUI). 

Hon.  L.  S.  Sackvii-le  Wk«t. 

That  was  not  entirely  satisfactory  to  Mr.  West,  and  he  replied  on 
the'iUth: 

Mr.  Went  to  Mr.  Bayard,  June  20, 1885. 

[Confldentlal.] 
British  Leoation,  WasMnglon.Jttne  20,  \M\ 

Mv  Dear  Mb.  Bayabd:  I  bej?  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  conllden- 
tial  Hole  111  ycNlerday'Hdate,  concerning  the  proposed  temporary  arrangement 
i'C!ipectiiiK  the  llHlieries,  which  1  am  iiutliorlzed  by  Her  Majesty's  <lovcrniiient 
lo  ncuotiate  with  you  tin  behalf  of  the  Government  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
and  the  government  of  Newfoundland,  to  be  efloctod  by  an  cxcluiii(;e  of  notes 
founded  on  your  inemorandiim  of  the  aist  of  April  last. 

The  two  conlidential  memoranda  which  I  handed  to  you  on  the  13th  in.stant 
contain,  as  you  assume,  tlio  acceptance  by  the  Dominion  and  the  Uritisli-Amer- 
ican  coast  provinces  of  the  K^neral  features  of  your  above-meiitioiie<l  memo- 
randuin,  with  the  nnderstandiiiK  expressed  on  their  side  that  the  aKrcenicnt  has 
been  arrived  ut  under  circuniHtiinccs  airordiiiK  prospects  of  iieKotiation  for  tlio 
development  and  extension  of  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Uril  isli  Xortli 
America,  a  contini;ciit  undcrslandiiiK  to  which,  as  you  slate,  you  chii  have  no 
objection,  as  you  re({urd  it  as  covered  by  the  terms  of  your  memorandum  of 
April  21. 

In  authorizing  me  to  negotiate  this  aKreement,  F^arl  Granville  states,  as  I  have 
already  bad  occasion  to  intimate  to  you,  that  it  is  on  the  distinct  uiiderstaiid- 
iiiK  tliat  it  is  u  temporary  one,  and  that  its  conclusion  must  not  be  held  to  preju- 
dice any  claim  which  may  be  a<lvanced  to  more  satisfactory  e<|uivalciits  by  the 
colonial  governments  in  the  course  of  the  ncgotiution  for  a  more  pcriiianent 
settlement.  Karl  Granville  further  wishes  me  to  tell  you  that  Her  .Majesty's 
Ck>vcrnment  and  the  colonial  Kovernments  have  consented  to  the  arrant;ement 
solely  as  a  mark  of  good-will  to  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United 
States — 

A  remarkable  exhibition  of  good-will  to  the  people  of  the  United 

States  to  give  them  that  which  they  had  declared  without  di.s.sent, 

through  the  only  organ  through  which  they  could  properly  dechire  it, 

that  they  did  not  want  it  continued — 

and  to  avoid  difllculties  which  might  be  raised  by  the  termination  of  the  fishery 
articles  in  the  midst  of  a  fishing  season  ;  and  also  the  acceptance  of  such  aimxhia 
vtvendt  does  not,  by  any  implication,  atfect  the  value  of  the  inshore  flslieriesby 
the  Governments  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland.  I  had  occasion  to  remark  to 
you  that  while  the  colonial  governments  are  asked  to  guaranty  immunity  from 
interference  to  American  vessels  resorting  to  Canadian  waters,  no  such  immu- 
nity is  ottered  in  your  memorandum  to  Canadian  ves-sels  resortiuH:  to  American 
'^vaters,  but  that  the  Dominion  government  presumed  that  the  agreement  in  this 
respect  would  Ije  mutual.  As  you  accepted  this  view,  it  would,  1  think,  be  as 
well  that  mention  should  be  made  to  this  ell'ect  in  the  notes. 


21 


Uiulcr  the  ro«erviillon»,  an  »l)i>v«  lniliratt><l,  In  whloli  I  believe  you  ucqiiU-Hr«, 
I  am  prnpitrcil  to  accept  the  liii'liTHtHinliiiK  *>■>  l>cliiilf  uf  Hrltlxli  North  Aiiiorii'H, 
•11(1  to  vxt'liiiiiRe  iiotcM  III  the  iiliiiv«  Heii"t<. 

1  hitve  tliu  liuiior  to  lit),  with  the  UIkIichI  re«peut,Mlr,  your  olx'dluiit  Nervniit, 

L.  M.  HACKVlLhK  VVKMT. 

Hon.  T.  K.  Hay  A  tin,  etc. 

Ho,  Mr.  President,  I  tliink  it  may  be  asHumed  that  the  initiative  of 
this  prupuHcd  treaty  wiis  not  for  the  purpo.se  of  niaiting  a  treaty  on  t1i>' 
flHlitry  (jueHtion,  but  a  reciprocity  treaty.  The  i'resident  of  the  United 
KtuteH,  agreeable  to  bis  agreement  with  the  Hritish  Government,  miiIi 
mitted  a  proposition  to  Congre.'^s  for  the  api>ointnient  of  a  comuiiNNinn. 
I  need  not  go  into  that  at  any  great  length,  except  to  show  the  action 
of  certain  tni-nibers  of  the  .Senate  of  the  United  States  upon  that  proiniHi- 
tlon.     The  Senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  Fkyh]  ofll'ered  this  resolution: 

Rinohud,  That, in  the  opinion  of  the  Henate,  the  appointment  ofa  ooiniiilfiitioii 
In  which  the  OoverninentHof  the  United  HtatcH  anil  Great  Hritain  nhiill  beroprc- 
Rented,  ohnrKed  with  tlie  conxideration  and  Heltlement  of  tlie  HhIiIiik  riKlit**  of 
the  two  UnverniiientH,  on  the  oonntH  of  the  United  Htatea  and  Urltiah  Nortli 
America,  oUKht  not  to  be  provided  lor  by  C'oiiKresit. 

When  tbut  resolution  v/an  before  the  Senate  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign liuliitious  were  repreHented  not  in  a  parti(<un  way  ut  all.     The  Sena 
tor  from  Maine  made  some  remarks,  which  were  followed  by  the  Sena- 
tor from  Alabama,  a  member,  and  I  may  say  the  leading  member  of  the 
committee  upon  the  Democratic  side.     Mr.  Mokoan  said: 

In  listoniiiK  to  the  remarks  of  the  Senator  from  Maine,  and  also  in  what  in- 
vcHtiRatiun  I  have  been  able  to  ^ive  thin  siibjout,  I  am  unable  to  aMcertuin  that 
there  is  really  any  iiimottlcd  (|uenti(in  between  the  United  Htuten  and  Great 
Britain  in  regard  to  the  fNherieM  of  the  iiortheaHtern  oonnt.  I  have  inquired  of 
Heiiators  wlio  have  had  Ioiik  exnerienoe  in  diplomatic  all'aira  of  the  country,  to 
uticei'tuin,  if  I  could,  whether  there  wati  any  open  <|uei4tlon  of  damiiKCH,  any 
cinim  of  diinmRca  arlHliiK  between'the  Governments  reHpectively  out  of  any 
suppoHed  breach  of  our  tlsheries  treaties  or  our  flsheries  laws;  and  I  can  hear 
nothing  of  that  kind.  The  Halifax  Commission  seems  to  have  settled  fur  Kood 
and  all  every  controversy,  soundiiiK  in  dainaKes  at  least,  which  has  been  pro- 
motcil  or  urRod  by  the  citi/ciisof  tlie  countries  on  either  side. 

I  cnncpive  that  there  is  no  want  of  certainty  in  our  treaty  relations,  and  there 
is  Hciirct'ly  room  for  a  dilt'ereiice  in  interpretation  of  what  our  treaty  relations 
uctiially  are.  The  two  treaties  which  have  m-ttied  theaotualand  what  wemiKht 
tenii  the  pcrinaiieiit  rights  of  the  ^)e^)pIc  of  the  United  Stales  and  of  the  Domin- 
ion oouiiiry  in  re^urd  to  the  HHhenes  are  the  treaties  of  n>Vi  and  IHiH.  No  other 
ti'ciiticH  wo  have  made  at  all  in  respect  to  tlie  tisherieH  have  undertaken  to  de- 
fine the  penminent  eiidiiriiiKriKhts  either  of  the  Ilritish  jieopleor  of  our  people 
ill  respect  of  the  tisherieH.  We  have  had  two  other  treaties  on  this  siibiect,  the 
treaty  of  ISSJ  and  the  treaty  of  IH"l,but  they  were  both  temporary  in  their  char- 
acter and  both  made  liable  to  lie  suspended  by  the  action  of  either  government 
after  they  had  run  for  ten  years,  and  both  have  been  abrogated.  Ho  that  the 
Held  is  eiitlri'ly  clear  in  respect  of  the  actual  state  of  treaty  relations  between 
the  United  Slates  and  (ireat  Britain,  and  those  treaty  relations  rest  upon  the 
treaiiex  of  iVKJ  and  18IH. 

He  then  discussed  the  qne.<ition  whethei  the  treaty  of  1783  had  been 
super-ii'iled  by  the  treaty  of  1H18,  and  he  differed  from  the  Senator  from 
l)i'la\vai«  [Mr.  Gkay]  and  some  others,  and  asserted  that  it  had  not 
been.     He  «|Uoted  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  declared: 

That  was  all  that  was  said  about  it.  A  broader  right  of  flshery  than  that  can 
not  lieeoiieeived  of;  no  restriction  or  restraint  uponitat  ail,  except  tliat  in  con- 
ducting; Iheir  biisiiies.s  they  should  not  trespass  or  intrude  on  private  property 
on  the  HiKire  in  drawing  their  fish  or  mending  their  nets  or  whatever  other  use 
they  nii;^lil  have  for  the  shore. 

He  went  on  to  say  in  sub-stance  that  it  was  an  entire  perversion  pf 
the  Ireiity  of  1818  to  give  it  the  construction  that  the  British  or  Cana- 
dian aiitlidrities  were  contending  for.  Then  he  said,  speaking  of  the 
Lrilisli  statute: 

If  that  is  so.  it  seems  to  nie  lliere  is  no  difllculty  at  nil  either  in  construing  or 
in  handling  this  matter.     As  I  remarked  before,  I  can  not  see  that  there  is  any 


22 


i  II 


•II"' 


dlflluiilty  In  tlir  roniitriU'tlon  of  the  treiity  of  ixtstukpii  by  HneU.  AM  tlie  rlnht* 
lh*t  Hr«  yriiariiiil It'll  ilicrr  uiid  tlmt  liuvi*  iiDt  Ih'imi  riiliii'K<'il  l>T  xlntiitu  <>(  (lrt>itl 
Hrllniii  (liitiilii.  iiiiil  tliiTH  In  no  (lltlliiilly  In  lli«  ciiiiHtriii'tliMi  lit  tlixiii,  Tlivre  la 
•lo  illllW'iiUy  III  llii>  iiiiiNtriii'tloii  of  till*  ItrltUli  itiitiitt'x  uii  IIiIn  niiIiIvcI.  Hnl, 
Ihaii,  XI!  iiri<  not  rullcil  upon  to  <'onMirii<>  liii'in.  Wliiit  u'citrw  callfil  upon  (il  ilo 
In  to  I  riitet'l  our  pcopit*  nKnliiMt  uiiy  wronKcoiiMtnit'ilon  tlint  ilii-y  muv  put  upon 
(heir  own  Iuwm,  Iiv  ii  powi-r  lliul  wu  rfiterveoxpri-MMly  In  the  hiinilKoi' llie  rrcitU 
(lunt  of  lliu  I'liitt'ti  HtalcN. 

I  ilo  not  wInIi  to  voliiiitei-r  any  oplnloim  nliont  IhU  Miil>|<>t't  lio^ir*^  ii  ipii<Htloii 
K«tii  hororc  thf  MtMiiitt' unil  I  iiin  cuiiipi'lleil  to  iicl  iipun  It:  liiii  my  convlcllons 
nre  very  HtronK;  they  uru  llietl ;  Inclet-il  1  niiiv  Mity  llntt  wu  vnn  Ki't  ulonK  wllli 
the  people  ofUreut  iirltiiln  on  thlN  iiibji't't  wlllioiil  any  fm-tlK^r  treaty  at  all  iiikI 
wltliont  uiiy  fiirlli<>r  leKlHliilion  If  any  oni'  were  to  awk  inc  what  proviMlon  •( 
A  treaty  I  wouhl  frame  to  compose  anil  m'tllt*  any  c|iicHtloii  of  f>Miilaniitntiil  law 
between  im  Hnil  Orciit  lirltaln  In  rcMpt'ct  ol'  the  lUhtM-li'M,  I  coiiKI  not  NiiKir<  it  it, 
or  If  I  were  aHkcd  to  propuMc  un  uincndincnt  to  tlir  Mtaliiltiiif  the  l.'nlli'ilMnttM 
HO  m-*  to  put  tliu  control  of  thin  In'rlcntu  Hiihject  nioro  roni|  leti'ly  In  the  hiin<lHof 
our  own  Oovernnient  Iroiild  not  frHnio  tlie  anii-nilinentto  tliu  Htnliiteii.  I  wouUI 
not  know  how  to  do  It.  i  liulleve  that  hoth  the  treaty  HllpiilHllonN  and  the  nit* 
uation  inider  the  HtatutcH  arc  about  mh  complete  as  we  ure  ever  ahle  to  tnak« 
(hem.  There  may  lie  other  inlereHla,  and  there  are  other  IntercHtN  lyiii;;  hetweun 
tlifl  people  of  the  Kritlih  poHHeNNlonH  and  the  United  Htaten  that  I  would  like 
v^ry  much  indeed  to  M>e  promoted  liy  further  neKulialion,  but  I  can  not  uall  to 
mind,  there  Ih  nu  MUKKestlon  to  my  mind  of,  itnv  Improvement  that  we  could 
make  under  cxiiitinK  cunditloTiBof  our  rlKhtH  In  tne  tlitherleH  of  that  Northoaitt* 
ern  coast, 

Hpeaking  on  another  point  he  uid! 

Therefore  I  tliink  that  the  Oovernmerit  should  leave  tiin  matter  Just  where  It 
Is,  and  I  do  not  think  ConKreHt  inn  be  1 1  rNUiided  to  rep-nil  thut  act. 

That  wiis  nn  act  which  ^iive  the  Prenident  power  to  interfere  if  our 
ships  went  not  properly  treated. 

That  was  tliu  opinion  of  the  .Senator  from  Alahamn  when  he  declared 
that  our  coniinercinl  ri^htj  were  derived  from  the  iu;t  of  Great  Hritaiu 
of  18'M  in  conjunction  with  our  own,  when  he  declared  in  unequivocal 
terms  thot  the  right  to  purchase  bait  and  ice  were  guarantied  to  us  by 
that  cominercit.l  arran^^ement,  ai:d  as  long  as  Great  Britain  did  not  re- 
tire from  that  arrangement  made  between  the  British  Government  and 
ours  by  which  we  were  to  po-na  certain  legislation  and  they  were  to  have 
oertuin  orders  made  in  council,  there  was  no  question  at  all  about  our 
right  to  buy  Jce  and  ba't.  He  went  on  to  say  that  it  "  >  b«  neath  the 
dignity  of  ^he  Government  of  I'n^  United  States  to  put  tu  .  *  watya 
provision  that  we  might  buy  baiti  and  ice. 

This  resolution,  os  everybody  remembers,  pass*  p  >  itical 

unanimity  or  nearly  so,  there  being  but  ten  votes  against  it  in  the  Senate 
and  the  Senator  from  Alabama  being  one  of  those  who  voted  for  it. 

However,  Mr.  President,  these  violations  of  our  treaty  rights  con- 
tinred  and  it  was  thought  best  to  arm  the  Government  of  the  United 
State:;  -'ith  mure  extended  powers  than  the  acts  already  on  the  statute- 
'•ook  ii^-  \  A  hill  wa«  introduced,  if  I  recollect  aright, by  the  Senator 
fT,.in  ,  mioat '  Mr.EuM  nds]  and  referred  to  the  Committeeon  Foreign 
RoiailoL's  r\i  v/hich  thf  Senatov  from  Alabama,  as  I  have  before  said, 
v\»,  m<aiiib.'^r,  and  wheii  the  bill  came  before  the  Senate  the  Senator 
fron  Alah .'  laa  said: 

Mr.  President,  I  was  a  member  of  the  committee  who  reported  this  bill,  nnd 
it  received  my  cordial  upprobatioii.  I  was  also  a  member  of  the  suhcnnnmit- 
tee  which  formulated  th«  oUi,and  it  was  carefully  considered  tliere  in  conneo> 
Hon  witli  the  evidence  which  had  been  collected  not  only  from  their  own  in* 
vestigations  under  the  order  of  the  Senate  but  also  from  the  archives  of  tho 
State  Department  as  far  as  we  had  access  to  those  archives. 

Mr.  President,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  this  statement 
made  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama  that  he  was  one  of  the  originators 
of  this  act  that  armed  the  President  v?ith  power  to  suepeml  Canadian 
commerce  if  he  saw  fit. 


V  i    h;: 


23 


T  cill  tlifl  attention  of  the  H«>nat(«  to  tliiit  IxTAumt  I  piopoMo  to  notice 
hi."  coi>i|)iuint  niiulu  in  thu  .Semite  tliat  we  lind  iicted  covvar  ily  in  tliiH 
til,'  *ci,  tlint  we  were  not  willinu  (<>  t>>ke  tiie  i'es|)onsi))ilily  ol'tleter 
inluiD;.'  whether  tliere  were  violutiiMiM  of  the  trenty  ot  |h|m,  luitl  ww* 
not  willinKourselveH  toileelare  non-inteirouiHe,  eitlier  litniteil  or  to  ait 
extended  decree,  Itut  tliat  we  hu<l  ittipoHid  tlii-t  u|H>n  tlie  l'reMidi>rit.  ii« 
Lemdd,  lor  the  pnriMweofnettitiK  t lie  1 'resilient  iiitodinicnity,  or  word* 
to  that  eiVect.  Vet  lie  luiiioiineed  t  >  tlie  Senate  that  lie  wiw  one  of  the 
oriKitiutorHOt'it,  und  that  it  had  hin  iiiniiialilled  Ntipport:  iidm)  ho  de- 
I'eiided  it  in  a  lengtliy  Hpeech,  I  need  not  Hay  in  an  aliie  Npecch.  '\e 
took  the  Aniericau  Hide  of  tlio  ((ueHtion,  and  when  the  Senator  fiuia 
Maryland  [Mr.  (IIokman]  attempted  to  amend  tiiu  ntatnteof  .Maveb  '^ 
1887,  by  giving  it  more  force,  uh  he  Muid,  and  extending  it  fnrther,  tl.ie 
Senator  from  Alubumu  woh  ag.dn  heard.  On  all  oecoHionH  it  receiwd 
bi(t  unciualilled  approbation  iw  it  received  tlie  iiiKinuliiied  approbatiori 
of  every  member  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  Senate.  No  ni,in  on 
that  aide  either  lifted  hiH  voice  iigainst  the  bill  or  voted  ngainnt  it;  and 
yctwu  nretold  now  that  thcHtatute  was  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  get- 
ting the  Democratic  Adniinintration  into  dinicnlty. 

When  the  bill  went  to  the  lIouHe  of  Kepresentatives  it  was  nbly  dis- 
CHHHed,  OB  the  liiccolil)  will  show.  Not  wishing  to  detain  the  Senate, 
I  shall  not  advert  to  each  particular  statement  made  by  the  tncmberfl 
of  the  HouHe.  I  presume  Keuatora  have  looked  up  that  debate.  There 
wiiH  no  objection  to  the  bill.  There  woh  u  controventy  between  the 
House  and  the  Senate  as  to  which  particular  bill  Hhould  be  adopted, 
whether  it  should  be  the  bill  of  the  Senate  or  the  bill  of  the  House. 
It  was  contended  in  the  House  that  the  House  bill  was  the  most 
vigorous,  that  it  put  more  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Administration, 
and  therefore  they  favored  it.  In  the  House  at  that  time  there  waa 
the  present  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Daniki.],  who  made  an  able 
speech  iu  defense  of  the  American  idea  of  the  treaty  of  1818;  ther** 
was  the  juni<'7  Senator  from  Texas  [Mr.  Keaoan],  who  declared 
that  we  ought  to  be  careful  how  we  dealt  with  Great  iiritain,  for 
in  all  our  ibaliugs  with  Great  Hritain  we  had  been  always  over- 
reached; there  were  Mr,  CLK5IKNTS,  Mr.  Cox,  and  other  distin- 
guished Democrats,  all  of  them,  including  Mr.  MtLLs,  supporting  the 
measure,  not  simply  by  their  votes,  but  by  their  speeches,  every  one 
of  them  insisting  then  that  the  Aiuerican  construction  of  the  treaty  of 
1818  wa.*-  the  coustruction  we  should  insist  upon  at  all  times.  That 
bill  pas-sc'd  t  ho  Senate  with  one  dissenting  vote,  and  he  was  not  a  Dem- 
ocrat. 

Mr.  FRVE.     That  was  a  vote  caat  by  mistake. 

Mr.  TELLFiR.  The  Senator  from  Maine  says  that  was  a  vote  cast 
by  mist,*ke.  The  bill  passed  the  House  with  one  dissenting  vote,  and 
I  do  not  know  whose  vote  that  was. 

I  desire  to  submit  several  letters^of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  par- 
pose  of  showing  that  when  we  complain  and  say  that  the  conduct  of 
the  Canadian  olBciuls  has  been  in  violation  of  the  treaty  we  are  sup- 
ported by  the  Secretary  <»f  Slate.  I  And  that  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  West, 
written  May  10,  IHHtJ,  he  declares  that  the  British  construction  of  the 
treaty,  if  allowed,  would  be  in  eflFect  to  utterly  destroy  all  our  rights 
under  the  treaty  of  1818.  He  was  insisting  in  the  letter  as  to  our  com- 
mercial rights  that  they  had  been  enlarged  by  the  action  of  Congress, 
the  proclamation  of  the  President  and  the  action  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment in  18I{(),  and  that  tl;ey  included  Ushing  vessels  as  well  as  othe 
vessels.     He  said,  on  paye  ;290: 


1 


(  ( 


i'     I 


I 


ii'i, 


24 

President  Jackson's  proiOaraittion  of  October  5,  ISHO,  created  a  reciprocal  coin- 
niercial  intercourse,  on  terms  of  perfect  equality  of  flag,  between  this  country 
and  tlie  Vritisli  American  dependencies,  by  repealing  tlie  navlM^ation  ui'ts  of 
April  18,  1818,  May  15,  IHJU.and  March  l,lS2:t,and  adinillinK  HritiHli  vcmscU  and 
their  cargoes  "to  an  entry  in  the  ports  of  the  United  Slates  from  the  islands, 
provinces, and  colonies  of  Great  Hritain  on  or  near  the  American  continent, 
and  north  or  east  of  the  United  Htates."  These  commercial  privilcKes  have 
since  received  a  large  extension  in  the  interests  of  propimiuity,  and  in  some 
oases  favors  have  been  granted  by  the  United  States  withouteqnivalent  conces- 
sion. Of  the  latter  class  is  the  exemption  granted  by  the  shipping  act  of  June 
26, 1884,  amounting  to  one-hulf  of  the  regular  tonnage  dues  on  all  vessels  from  the 
BritishNorth  American  and  West  Indian  possessionsentering  ports  of  the  United 
States.  Of  the  reciprocal  class  are  the  arrangements  for  transit  of  goods,  and 
the  remission,  by  proelnmation,  as  to  certain  British  ports  and  places  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  tonnage-tax,  on  evidence  of  equal  treatment  being  shown  to  our 
vessels. 

On  the  other  side,  British  and  colonial  legislation,  as  notably  in  tlie  case  of  the 
imperial  shipping  and  navigation  act  of  June  20,  1849,  has  contributed  its  share 
toward  building  up  an  intimate  intercourse  and  beneltcial  traffic  between  the 
two  countries  founded  on  mutual  interest  and  convenience. 

Again  he  said,  on  page  2i)l: 

The  ett'ect  of  this  colonial  legislation  and  Executive  interpretation,  if  exe- 
cuted according  to  the  letter,  would  be  not  only  to  expand  the  restrictions  and 
renunciations  of  the  treaty  of  l.sl8,  which  related  solely  to  inshore  fishery  with- 
in the  3-mile  limit,  so  a.s  to  aflet't  the  deep-sea  fisheries,  the  right  to  which 
remained  unquestioned  and  unimpaired  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  but  further  to  <liminish  and  practically  to  destroy  the  privileges 
expressly  secured  to  Anierieari  fishing  vessels  to  visit  those  inshore  waters  for 
the  objects  of  shelter,  repair  of  damages,  and  purchasing  wood  and  obtaining 
water. 

Again  he  said,  on  page  292: 

I  may  recall  to  your  attention  the  fact  that  a  proposition  to  exclude  the  ves- 
sels of  the  United  States  engaged  in  fishing  fnniicarryingalsomerohaiidlsc  was 
made  by  the  British  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  but,  being  resisted  b.v  the 
American  negotiators,  was  abandoned.  This  fact  would  seem  clearly  to  indi- 
cate that  the  business  of  fishing  did  not  then  and  does  not  nowdisqualify  a  ves- 
sel from  also  trading  in  the  regular  ports  of  entry. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  188G,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  We.st,  Mr.  Bayard  used 
this  language,  on  page  297: 

Sib:  I  have  just  received  an  offlcial  imprint  of  House  of  Commons  bill  No. 
136,  now  pending  in  theCanadian  Parliament, entitled  "An  act  furtliertoamend 
the  act  respecting  fishing  iiy  foreign  vessels,"  and  am  informed  that  it  has  passed 
the  house  and  is  now  pending  in  the  senate. 

This  bill  proposes  the  forcible  search,  seizure,  and  forfeiture  of  any  foreign 
vessel  within  any  harbor  in  Canada,  or  hovering  within  .3  marine  miles  of 
any  of  the  coants,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  in  Canada,  where  such  vessel  has  en- 
tered such  waters  for  any  purpose  not  permitted  by  the  laws  of  nations,  ur  by 
treaty  or  convention,  or  by  any  law  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  of  Canada  now 
in  force. 

«  *  •  *  *  *  * 

Such  proceedings  I  conceive  to  be  flagrantly  violative  of  the  reciprocal  com- 
mercial privileges  to  which  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  lawfully  entitled 
under  statutes  of  Great  Britain  and  the  well-defined  and  puliliely  proclaimed 
authority  of  both  countries,  besides  being  in  respect  of  tlie  existing  conven- 
tions between  the  two  countries  an  assumption  of  Jurisdiction  entirely  unwar- 
ranted and  which  is  yvholly  denied  by  the  United  States. 

The  contention  of  the  Department  of  State  is  new  that  we  never  had 
any  commercial  rights  for  our  fishing  vesseLs.     What  did  the  Secretary  of 
State  mean  when  he  was  thus  addressing  the  British  authorities  as  the 
representative  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  ?     Was  he  in 
earnest?     Did  he  believe  that  we  had  commercial  rights? 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Secretary  of  State  notified  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  that  their  right  to  buy  bait  in  the  Ciinadian  pori.s  was  uii- 
<juestioned  under  the  law;  andt<)-(lay  we  are  told  by  the  President,  by 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  by  all  hisadlioretitson  the  other  side  ot  the 
Chamber,  that  it  is  a  ri,':;ht  wt;  never  had  at  all.     If  we  assert  that  the 


1 


j 


25 

rigiit  exists  by  virtue  of  the  treaty,  we  are  told  that  onr  partisan  zenl 
to  secure  votes  in  certiiiu  quartens  is  so  great  that  we  can  not  approach 
this  subject  in  the  judicial  temper  with  which  they  are  approaching  it. 
Again,  the  Secretary  of  State  said  on  the  7th  of  June,  1886,  page  298: 

Sir:  1  reRrct  exoeediiiRly  toooiniimnicate  that  report  is  today  made  tome,  ai'- 
coin|iMnH>il  by  iillidavit.ortlie  reliisal  of  tlie  collector  of  cuntouis  at  the  port  <>(' 
.St.  AndrewH,  New  Uniiiswiok,  to  hIIow  the  master  of  the  American  schooniT 
Annie  M.  Jordiin.  of  Gloucester,  Ma«H.,  to  enter  tlie  said  vefsel  at  that  port,  a'- 
thoii.i{h  properly  documented  a><ii  H.MliinK  vessel  with  i>ermis8ion  to  touch  and 
trade  at  any  foreiRn  port  or  place  durinx  l»er  voyane. 

The  object  of  «uch  entry  was  explained  by  the  master  to  be  the  purchase  and 
*xporlatioti  of  "certain  merchandise"  (possibly  fresh  fish  lor  food,  or  bait  for 
deep-sea  fishinK). 

Tlie  vessel  was  threatened  with  seizure  by  the  Canadian  authorities,  and  her 
owners  allege  that  they  have  sustained  damage  from  this  refusal  of  commercial 
rights. 

I  earnestly  protest  against  this  \inwarranted  withholding  of  lawful  commer- 
cial privileges  from  an  American  vessel  and  her  owners,  and  for  the  loss  and 
damage  consequentthereon  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  will  be  held  liable. 
I  have,  etc., 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 

How  much  we  shall  get  will  be  readily  seen  when  they  now  meet 
lis  at  all  times  with  the  declarations  of  the  President  ami  the  Secretaiy 
of  State  that  no  such  commercial  privileges  ever  existed  for  our  fishing; 
ves.sels,  and  that  a  fishing  vessel  could  not  be  a  fishing  vessel  and  a 
commercial  vessel  at  the  same  time. 

The  Canadian  authorities  in  188fi  warned  oiF  all  our  vessels,  threat- 
ened them  if  they  did  not  keep  away  from  that  coast.  June  14,  188(\ 
Mr.  Kayard  addressed  this  letter  to  Sir  Lionel  West  concerning  this 
matter: 

Mr.  Bayard  to  Sir  L,  Wc»t. 

Df.pautment  ok  State,  Washivglnn,  Jnneli,lHS6. 

Sir  :  The  consul-general  of  the  United  States  .at  Halifax  comm\micated  to  me 
the  information  derived  by  him  from  the  collectorof  customs  at  that  port  to  the 
effect  that  American  (ishing  vessels  will  not  be  permitted  to  land  fish  at  that 
port  of  entry  for  transportation  in  bond  across  the  province. 

I  have  also  to  inform  you  that  *he  masters  of  the  four  American  fishing  ve.s- 
sels  of  Gloucester.  IVIass.,  ftlartha  A.  Bradley,  ICattler,  ICliza  lioyiiton,  and  I'io- 
iieer,  have  severally  reported  to  the  consul-general  at  Halifax  that  the  subeol- 
leetor  of  customs  at  Canso  had  warned  them  lo  kc<^p  otUside  an  imaginary  line 
<iriiwn  from  a  points  miles  outside  Canso  Head  to  a  point  3  miles  outside  St. 
I'^sprit,  on  the  Cape  Breton  coast,  a  distance  of  40  milts.  This  line  for  nearly 
its  entire  continuance  is  distant  12  to  25  miles  from  the  coast. 

The  same  masters  also  report  thai  tliey  were  warned  aij.iinst  going  inside  an 
imaginary  line  drawn  fioin  a  point  'I  iiiiles  outside  Nortli  Cape,  on  I'rince  Kd- 
ward  Island,  to  a  point  3  miles  onlsi'lc  of  I'^u.st  Point,  on  tlie  same  island,  a  dis- 
tance ol Over  liK)  iiiile.s,  aiid  that  this  last-named  line  was  for  nearly  that  entire 
di.stance  about  80  miles  from  the  sliore. 

The  same  authority  informed  the  musters  of  the  vessels  referred  to  that  they 
would  not  be  permitted  to  enter  Hay  Chaleui'. 

Such  warnings  are,  as  you  must  l>e  well  aware,  wholly  unwarranted  preten- 
tions of  extraterritorial  authority  and  usurpations  of  Juiisdiction  by  the  pro- 
viiieiul  orticials. 

It  l)ecoines  my  duty,  in  bringing  this  inforniation  to  your  notice,  to  request 
that  if  any  such  orders  lor  iiiterlereiii'e  with  the  inK|uestioiial>le  riglits  of  the 
Anieriean  flshermen  to  pursue  their  business  without  molestation  at  any  point 
not  witliin.'i  marine  miles  of  the  sliores,  -uid  within  the  dedned  limits  as  to  which 
renunciation  of  the  lil)erty  to  fisli  was  expressed  in  the  treaty  of  181H,  may  have 
been  is.sued,  the  siiine  may  al  once  be  revoked  as  violative  of  the  rights  of  citi- 
Kciis  of  the  United  St:itcs  under  convention  with  Great  Britain. 

I  will  ask  you  to  bring  this  subject  to  the  immediate  attention  of  Her  Britannic 
IMajesty's  Gctvernmcnt,  to  the  end  that  proper  remedial  orders  may  be  forth- 
with issued. 

It  seems  most  unfortunate  and  regrelable  that  questions  which  have  been  long 
since  sell  led  between  the  United  SiatesaiidGreat  Britain  should  now  besought 
•to  be  revived. 

I  have,  etc., 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 


it  ■' 


1 1 


;  i       , 


-.•-' 


.  ill. 

nil-' 


M' 


iii 


MliM. 


20 

Mr.  President,  I  was  not  mistaken  when  I  said  he  had  revived  the  ob- 
solete headland  theory.  Here  is  his  own  statement  that  it  had  been 
abandoned.  I  will  show  before  I  get  through  that  Sir  Charles  Tapper 
declared  to  the  Canadian  Parliament  that  it  bad  been  abandoned,  and 
every  man  familiar  with  the  history  of  these  transactions  knows  that  it 
had  been  practically  abandoned. 

Some  time  in  April,  1886,  Messrs.  Gushing  and  McKenney,  New 
England  men  doing  business  in  those  waters,  addressed  a  telegram  to 
the  Secretary  of  State  seekingto  know  what  their  rights  were.  I  have 
not  the  telegram  here,  but  the  answer  is  sufficient  to  show  what  it  was. 
They  asked,  '  'Are  we  entitled  to  go  in  these  waters,  and  what  are  our 
rights  when  we  get  there?"  The  reply  of  the  State  Department  was 
as  follows: 

Mr.  Bayard  to  Metsrs.  Cushing  and  McKenney. 
[Telegram,] 

Statb  Depabthent,  April  9, 1886. 
The  question  of  the  right  of  American  vessels  engaged  in  Ashing  on  the  high 
seas  to  enter  Canadian  ports  for  the  purpose  of  shipping  crews  may  possibly  in- 
volve  construction  of  treaty  with  Great  Britain.  I  expect  to  attain  such  an 
understanding  as  will  relieve  our  flnhermen  from  all  doubts  or  risk  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  ordinary  commercial  privileges  of  friendly  porti?,  to  which,  under 
existing  laws  of  both  countries,  I  consider  their  citizeua  to  be  mutually  entitled, 
free  from  molestation. 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 

The  Secretary  of  State  expressed  his  opinion  that  while  it  might  be 
difficult  to  say  whether  we  could  ship  crews,  we  could  buy  bait  and 
we  could  buy  ice  and  we  could  buy  provisions  if  the  ship  was  in  dis- 
tress or  needed  them.  Yet  to-day  we  are  told  that  no  snch  rights  exist, 
that  they  never  did  exist,  and  that  he  who  asserts  it  asserts  it  simply 
because  be  is  blind  and  can  not  see. 

Again,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  West  of  May  10,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  com- 
plained of  the  seizure  of  vessels  as  follows,  on  page  290: 

The  seizure  of  the  vessels  I  have  mentioned,  and  certain  published  "  warn- 
ings "  purporting  to  have  been  issued  by  the  colonial  authorities,  would  appear 
to  have  been  made  under  a  supposeddelegation  of  jurisdiction  by  the  Imperial 
Government  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  be  intended  to  include  authority  to  in- 
terpret and  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  to  which,  as  I  have  re- 
marked, the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  are  the  contracting  parties,  who- 
can  alone  deal  responsibly  with  questions  arising  thereunder. 

The  efl'ect  of  this  colonial  legislation  and  executive  interpretation,  if  exe- 
cuted according  to  the  letter,  would  be  not  only  to  expand  the  restrictions  and 
renunciations  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  which  related  solely  to  inshore  fishery 
within  the  3-raile  limit,  so  as  to  aSect  the  deep-sea  fisheries,  the  right  to  which 
remained  unquestioned  and  unimpaired  for  the  employment  of  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  but  further  to  diminish  and  practically  to  destroy  the  priv- 
ileges expressly  secured  to  American  fishing  vessels  to  visit  those  inshore 
waters  for  the  objects  of  shelter,  repair  of  damages,  and  purchasing  wood,  and 
obtaining  water. 

July  2,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  complained  to  Mr.  West  in  the  following 
language: 

3fr.  Bayard  to  Sir  L.  West, 
Department  of  State,  Washington,  July  2, 1886. 
Sir:  It  is  my  unpleasant  duty  promptly  to  communicate  to  you  the  tele- 
graphic report  to  me  by  the  United  States  consul-general  at  Halifax,  that  the 
schooner  City  Point,  of  Portland,  Me.,  arrived  at  the  port  of  Shelburne,  Nova 
Scotia,  landed  two  men,  obtained  water,  and  is  detained  by  the  authorities 
until  further  instructions  are  received  from  Ottawa. 

The  case  as  thus  reported  is  an  Infringement  on  the  ordinary  rights  of  inter- 
national hospitality,  and  constitutes  a  violation  of  treaty  stipulations  and  com- 
mercial privileges,  evincing  such  unfriendliness  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  tis  is  greatly  to  be  deplored,  and  which  I  hold  It  to  be  the  responsible 
duty  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  promptly  to  correct. 
I  have,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 


27 


red  the  ob- 
had  been 
63  Tapper 
oned,  and 
ws  that  it 

ney,  New 
ilegram  to 
B.  I  have 
lat  it  was. 
lat  are  our 
bment  was 


ril  9, 1886. 
Dn  the  high 
possibly  in- 
.in  such  an 
in  ttie  ex- 
liicb,  under 
ly  entitled, 

lAYARD. 

might  be 

bait  and 

ras  in  dis* 

^hts  exist, 

i  it  simply 

S^ard  com- 

led  "  warn- 
juld  appear 
le  Imperial 
ority  to  in- 
1 1  have  re- 
larliea,  who- 

on,  if  exe- 
ictions  and 
ore  fishery 
lit  to  which 
I  citizens  of 
ly  the  priv- 
>8e  inshore 
wood, and 

following 


ly  2, 1886. 

u  the  tele- 
ix,  that  tlie 
lime,  Nova 
authorities 

ts  of  inter- 
is  and  com- 
the  United 
responsible 


AYARD. 


At  a  later  date,  July  10,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  recited  another  outrage, 
as  follows: 

Jfr.  Bayard  to  Sir  L.  Wcit. 
I  Department  op  State,  Washington,  July  10,1886. 

'  Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inrorm  you  that  1  am  in  receipt  of  a  report  from  the 
consiil-senural  of  the  United  States  at  Halifax,  accompanied  by  sworn  testi- 
mony stating  that  the  Novelty,  a  duly  regiHtered  merchant  steam- vesHel  of  the 
United  States,  has  been  denied  the  right  lo  take  in  steam-coal,  or  purchase  ice, 
or  transship  Hsh  in  bond  to  the  United  States,  at  Pictou,  Nova  Scotia. 

It  appears  that,  having  reached  that  port  on  the  Ist  instant  and  ilnding  the 
customs  ollice  closed  on  account  of  a  holiday,  the  master  of  the  Novelty  tele- 
graphed to  the  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries  at  Ottawa,  asking  if  he  would 
be  permitted  to  do  any  of  the  three  things  mentioned  above;  that  he  received 
in  reply  a  telegram  reciting  with  certain  inaccurate  and  extended  application 
the  language  of  Article  I  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  the  limitations  upon  the  signifi- 
cance of  wliiih  are  in  pending  discussion  between  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty;  that  on  entering  and  clearing  the 
Novelty  on  the  following  day  Ut  the  custom-house,  tlie  collector  stated  that  his 
instructions  were  contained  in  the  telegram  the  master  had  received  ;  and  that, 
the  privilegeof  coaling  being  denied,  the  Novelty  was  compelled  to  leave  Pictou 
without  being  allowed  to  obtain  fuel  necessary  for  her  lawful  voyage  on  a  dan- 
gerous coast. 

Against  this  treatment  I  make  instant  and  formal  protest  as  an  unwarranted 
Interpretation  and  application  of  the  treaty  by  the  oftlcers  of  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  and  the  Provmce  of  Nova  Scotia,  as  an  infraction  of  the  laws  of  com- 
mercial and  maritime  intercourse  existing  between  the  two  countries,  and  as  a 
violation  of  hospitality,  and  for  any  loss  or  injury  resulting  therefrom  the  Oov- 
ernment  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  will  be  held  liable. 
I  have,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 

On  the  same  day,  July  10,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  wrote  to  Mr.  West  as 

follows: 

To-day  Mr.  C,  A,  Botjtelle,  M.  C.  from  Maine,  informs  me  that  American 
boats  visitingSt.  Andrews,  New  Brunswick,  fur  the  purpose  of  there  purchasing 
herring  from  the  Canadian  weirs,  for  canning,  had  been  driven  away  by  the  Do- 
minion cruiser  Middleton. 

Such  inhibition  of  usual  and  legitimate  commercial  contracts  and  intercourse 
is  assuredly  without  warrant  of  law,  and  I  draw  your  attention  to  it  in  order 
that  the  commercial  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  may  not  be  thus  in- 
vaded and  subjected  to  unfriendly  discrimination. 
1  have,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 

July  16,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  wrote  to  Mr.  Hardinge  as  follows: 

Department  of  State,  M'aahington,  Ju'y  16, 1886. 

Sir:  I  have  just  received  through  the  honorable  C.  A.  Boutelle,  M.  C,  the 
affidavit  of  Stephen  R.  Balkam,  alleging  his  expulsion  from  the  harbor  of  St. 
Andrews,  New  Brunswick,  by  Captain  Kent,  of  the  Dominion  cruiser  Middle- 
ton,  and  the  refusal  to  permit  him  to  purchase  fish  caught  and  sold  by  Cana- 
dians, for  the  purpose  of  canning  as  sardines. 

The  action  of  Captain  Kent  seems  to  be  a  gross  violation  of  ordinary  commer- 
cial privileges  against  an  American  citizen  pr.^posing  to  transact  his  customary 
and  lawful  trade  and  not  prepared  or  intendi.ig  in  any  way  to  fish  or  violate 
any  local  law  or  regulation  or  treaty  stipulation. 

I  trust  instant  instructions  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  unfriendly  and 
unlawful  treatment  of  American  citizens  may  be  given  to  the  offending  ofiiciala 
at  St.  Andrews,  and  reparation  be  made  to  Mr.  Balkam. 
I  have,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 

Again,  July  30,  1886,  Mr.  Bayard  wrote  to  Sir  Lionel  West  as  fol- 
lows: 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  Jxiiy  30, 1886. 
Sir:  It  is  my  duty  to  draw  your  attention  to  an  infraction  of  the  stipulations 
of  the  treatv  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  Great  Britain,  concluded 
October  20, 1818. 

♦  ♦**«♦« 

I  am  also  in  possession  of  the  affidavit  of  Alexander  T.  Eachern,  master  of  the 
American  fishing  sthooner  Mascot,  who  entered  Port  Amherst,  Magdalen 
Islands,  and  was  there  threnteiii  d  by  the  customs  oftioial  with  seizure  of  hia 
vessel  if  he  attempted  to  obtain  liait  for  fishing  or  to  take  a  pilot. 


.li 


Mi 


ill 


Ml 


'li'i 


ill 


i  ( 


W  i 
IB!:  I 

:  Hill 


28 

Tlu'se  are  flHRraiit  violations  of  treaty  rights  of  their  citizens  for  which  the 
irnite<l  .states  expect  prompt  remedial  action  by  Her  Majesty's  Oovernmont; 
«nd  I  have  to  ask  that  such  instructions  maybe  issued  forthwith  to  the  provin- 
cial <<ffi  'ials  of  Newfoundland  and  of  the  Magdalen  Islands  as  will  cause  the 
treaty  rights  of  citizens  uf  the  United  States  to  be  duly  respected. 

For  the  losses  occasioned  in  the  two  coses  I  have  mentioned,  compensation 
will  hereafter  be  expected  from  Her  Majesty's  Government  when  the  amount 
-shall  have  been  accurately  ascertained. 

I  have,  etc.,  T.  P.  BAYARD. 

Later,  August  9, 1886,  there  seems  still  to  have  been  trouble,  and  Mr. 
Bayard  addressed  Mr.  Hardinge,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Bayard  to  Mr.  Hardinge. 

Depakthbnt  op  State,  Washington,  Augiul  9, 18^6. 
Sir:  I  regret  that  it  has  become  my  duty  to  draw  the  attention  of  Her  Majes- 
ty's Government  to  the  unwarrantable  and  unfriendly  treat  nent,  rep'  rted  to 
me  this  day  ly  the  United  States  consul-general  at  Halifax,  experienced  by  Ihe 
American  fishing  schooner  Rattler,  of  Gloucester,  Mass.,  on  the  8d  instant,  upon 
the  occasion  of  her  being  driven  by  stress  of  weather  to  find  shelter  in  the  i. ar- 
bor of  S  elburne,  Nova  Scotia. 

•  •••••• 

The  vessel  was  then  detained  until  the  captain  reported  at  the  custom-house, 
after  which  she  was  permitted  to  sail. 

The  hospitality  which  all  civilized  nations  prescribe  has  i  lus  been  violated 
and  the  stipulations  of  a  treaty  grossly  infracted. 

A  fishing  vessel,  denied  all  the  usual  commercial  privileges  in  a  port,  has  been 
compelled  strictly  to  perform  commercial  obligations. 

In  the  interestsof  amity,  lask  that  this  misconduct  may  be  properly  rebuked 
by  the  government  of  Her  Majesty. 
I  have,  etc., 

T.  P.  BAYARD. 

Later,  on  August  17, 1886,  Mr.  Bayard,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  West,  used 

this  language,  speaking  of  another  transaction: 

I  have  further  the  honor  to  ask  with  all  earnestness  that  the  Government  of 
Her  Britannio  IVIajesty  will  cause  steps  to  be  forthwith  taken  to  preventand  re- 
liuke  acts  so  violative  of  treaty  and  of  the  common  rites  of  hospitality. 

And  on  the  next  day,  August  18, 1886,  Mr.  Bayard,  in  a  letter  to  the 
same  gentleman,  used  the  following  language,  speaking  of  the  vessel 
liattler: 

Such  conduct  can  not  be  defended  on  any  just  grojind,  and  I  draw  your  atten- 
tion to  it  in  order  that  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  may  reprimand 
Captain  Quigley  for  his  unwarranted  and  rude  act. 

It  was  simply  impossible  for  this  officer  to  suppose  that  any  invasion  of  the 
fishing  privileges  of  Canada  was  intended  by  these  vessels  under  the  circum- 
stances. 

The  firing  of  a  gun  across  their  bows  was  a  most  unusunl  and  wholly  uncalled 
for  exhibition  of  hostility,  and  equally  so  was  the  placing  of  armed  men  on 
board  the  peaceful  and  lawful  craft  of  a  friendly  nation. 

Speaking  of  the  Molly  Adams,  in  his  letter  of  September  10,  1886, 
Mr.  Bayard  said  to  Mr.  West: 

This  inhospitable,  indeed  inhuman,  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  customs  officer 
in  question  should  be  severely  reprimanded,  and  for  the  infraction  of  treaty 
rights  and  commercial  privileges  compensation  equivalent  to  the  injuries  sus- 
tained will  be  claimed  from  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

Complaining  of  another  transaction,  Mr.  Bayard,  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
West,  said  September  23,  1886: 

Mr.  Bayard  to  Sir  L.  West. 
Department  op  State,  Waahington,  Septentber  23, 1886. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  bring  to  your  attention  an  instance  which  has  been 
brought  to  my  knowledge  of  an  alleged  denial  of  one  of  the  rights  guarantied 
by  the  convention  of  1818,  in  the  case  of  an  American  vessel. 

Capt.  Joseph  E.  Graham,  of  the  fishing  schooner  A.  R.  Crittenden,  of  Glou- 
cester, Mass.,  states  under  oath  Hiat  on  or  about  the  2l8t  of  July  last,  on  a  re- 
turn trip  from  the  open-sea  fishing  grounds  to  hisliome  port, and  while  pissing 
through  the  Strait  of  Canso,  he  stopped  at  Steep  Creek  for  water.  The  cuitonis 
officer  at  that  place  told  him  that  if  he  took  in  water  his  vessel  would  be  seized; 


_'aB 


2I» 


whereujion  he  sailed  without  obtuiiiiiiR  ;lu-  ii(>im1''<1  siiiiply,  iiiid  wawolilifjod  to 
put  his  men  on  short  «Ilo\vaii<'<(  of  whIim-  diirint!;  tlii'  |mssnne  lioiiicwiii'd. 

I  have  tlie  honor  to  ii>k  that  Her  IJritniinif  >iii,|osty's  iioveriiiiient  I'liiisi;  iii- 
vestiK'itioii  to  he  iiiade  of  tl»e  reported  rtclioii  of  tlie  eustuiiiH  olUeer  lit  Steop 
Creek,  an<I  if  the  fuels  he  an  stilted,  llmt  lie  he  promptly  relinked  for  his  unliiw- 
ful  and  inhinnaiie  eondiiet  in  deiiyinK  to  a  vessel  of  a  friendly  nation  a  Keiieral 
privilese,  which  is  not  only  hehl  saered  under  the  maritime  hiwof  nations,  but 
whicii  is  expressly  conlirmed  to  th<'  Hshernien  of  the  Unittd  Stiites  throughout 
the  Atlantic  coasts  of  British  North  Ameriea  by  the  first  article  of  the  conven- 
tion of  IHIH. 

it  does  not  appear  that  the  A.  R.Crittenden  suflered  other  <lainRfi;e  by  this  al- 
leged inhospitable  treatmeiit,  but  reserving  that  point  the  incident  affords  an  il- 
lustration of  the  vexatious  spirit  in  whicli  tlie  olllcers  of  the  Dmninion  of  (Can- 
ada appear  to  seek  to  penalize  and  oppress  those  lishiiiK  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  lawfully  engajjied  in  lishiug,  whicli  from  any  cause  are  broujjfht  within 
their  reach. 

I  have,  etc.,  _ 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 

I  shall  not.  encnmber  the  RECORn  by  putting  in  all  tho.se  letters. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  up  to  the  time  the.se  negotiation.s  hejjiin,  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  on  and  oflf,  again  and  again,  declared  that  the  Canadian 
authorities  "were  violating  the  treaty,  and  not  only  violating  the  treaty 
but  violating  the  coinniou  c()urte.sie.s  that  were  due  from  one  iriendly 
nation  to  another.  Not  only  did  he  so  assert  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment, but  he  iustrncted  our  minister  at  London  to  so  a.sscrt,  and  he 
did  so  assert  on  various  occasions.  As  suggested  by  the  Senator  from 
Connecticut  [Mr.  Platt],  he  did  that  to  American  citizens  who  were 
demanding  to  know  what  their  rights  were,  that  they  might  not  be 
led  into  a  trap.  He  said:  "Your  rights  are  to  go  in  there  and  buy." 
Now  he  asserts  that  no  such  riglit  ever  exi.sted.  When  did  he  get  the 
new  light? 

In  it  letter  to  l\Ir.  Phelps  on  November  fi.  18805,  Mr.  Bayard  asserted 
this  same  right  and  directed  him  to  aasert  it.     He  said,  on  page  4;i7: 

From  Her  Majesty's  Government  redress  is  asked.  And  thai  redress,  as  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  say  liereafter,  is  not  merely  tlie  indemnillcation  of  the 
parties  sulleriuji  by  Captain  Qiiiy;)ey',8  actions,  but  his  withdrawal  from  the 
waters  where  the  oiitraj^es  F  represent  to  you  have  been  committed. 

I  have  already  said  that  the  claims  thus  presented  could  be  abundantly  sus- 
tained by  the  law  of  nations,  aside  from  treaty  and  other  rights.  But  I  am  not 
willinfi;  to  rest  the  case  on  the  law  of  nations.  It  is  essential  that  the  isyue  be- 
tween United  States  tishinji;  vessels  and  the  "  cruiser  Terror"  should  be  exam- 
ined in  all  its  bearings,  and  settled  in  regard  not  men-ly  to  the  general  law  of 
nations,  but  to  the  particular  rights  of  the  parties  aifn'rieved. 

If  is  a  fact  tliat  the  tishiny;  vessel  Marion  Ci rimes  had  as  much  ritfht  under  the 
special  relations  of  (Jreat  Britain  and  the  United  States  to  enter  the  harbor  of 
Slielburne  as  had  the  Canadian  cruiser.  The  fact  that  the  Grimes  was  liable 
to  penalties  for  the  alnise  of  such  risht  of  entrance  does  not  disprove  its  ex- 
istence. Captain  Quinley  is  certainly  liable  to  penalties  for  his  misconduct  on 
the  occa-'ion  referred  to.  Captain  I/atidry  was  not  jji'ilty  of  miscoiidn<'t  in  en- 
teriuK  and  seekinjj  to  leave  that  harbor,  and  had  abused  no  iiriviletje.  But 
whether  liable  or  not  for  snbsetiuent  abuse  of  the  rights,  I  maintain  that  the 
rinht  of  free  entrance  into  that  port  to  obtain  shelter,  and  whatever  is  incident 
thereto,  belonged  as  much  to  the  American  Ashing  vessel  as  to  the  Canadian 
cruiser. 

The  basis  of  this  right  is  thus  declared  by  an  eminent  jurist  and  statesman, 
Mr.  U.  R.  Livingston,  the  first  Secretary  of  State  appointed  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  in  instructions  issued  on  January  7, 1782,  to  Dr.  Franklin,  then  at  Paris, 
intrusted  by  the  United  States  with  the  negotiation  of  articles  of  peace  with 
Great  Britain : 

"The  arguments  on  which  the  people  of  America  found  their  claim  to  fish 
on  the  banks  of  Newfoundlaudnri.se,  Hrst,  from  their  having  once  formed  a  part 
of  the  British  Empire,  in  which  state  they  always  enjoyed  as  fully  as  the  people 
of  Britain  themselves  the  right  of  Ashing  on  those  banks.  They  have  sliared  in 
all  the  wars  for  the  extension  of  that  right,  and  Britain  could  with  no  more 
justice  have  excluded  them  from  the  enjoyment  of  it  (even  supposing  that  one 
nation  could  possess  it  to  the  exclusion  of  another)  while  they  formed  a  part  of 
that  empire  than  they  could  t'xelndo  the  people  of  London  or  Bristol. 

"  If  BO.  the  only  inquiry  is,  how  have  we  lost  this  right?    If  we  were  tenants  in 


Mil 


i 


1  iS'i 


30 

common  with  Great  Brilniii  wliile  united  with  her,  we  still  continue  so,  unless 
by  our  own  act  we  hivve  relinquished  our  title.  Had  wo  parted  witli  mutual 
consent,  we  should  doubtless  have  uiudu  partition  of  our  euiuuioii  riKlits  by 
treaty.  But  the  oppressions  of  Ureat  Britain  forced  us  to  a  se|)arati()n  (wliicli 
must  be  adniitteil,  or  wo  have  no  rii;1it  to  l)e  independent);  and  it  can  not  cer- 
tainly bo  contended  that  those  oppressions  abridged  our  rights  or  guvo  new 
ones  to  Britain.  Uur  riglits,  then,  are  not  invalidated  l>y  this  separation,  nioro 
particularly  as  we  have  kept  up  our  claim  from  tlie  commencement  of  the  war, 
and  assigned  the  attempt  of  (Jreat  Britain  to  exclude  us  from  the  Hsheriea  aa 
one  of  the  causes  of  our  recurring  to  arms." 

•  *  «  •  «  «  « 

At  present  it  issulUeient  to  say  that  the  placiuK  an  armed  cruiser  at  the  mouth 
of  a  harbor  in  which  tlie  Unite<l  States  lisliiuMr  vessels  are  accustomed  and  are 
entitled  to  seek  shelter  on  their  voyages,  such  cruiser  beiuK  authorized  to  arrest 
ami  board  our  ttshinK  vessels  seeking  such  shelter,  is  an  infraction  not  merely 
of  the  law  of  nations,  but  of  a  solemn  treaty  stipulation.  That,  so  far  as  eon- 
cerns  the  Hshermen  so  all'ected,  itsconseciuenccs  ant  far-reuchint;  and  destruc- 
tive, it  is  not  necessary  here  to  argue.  Kisliintj  vessels  only  carry  provisions 
enouKh  for  each  particular  voya;;e.  Jf  they  are  detained  several  lia.vs  on  their 
way  to  tlie  iishing  banks,  the  venture  is  Ibruken  up.  The  arrest  anci  detention 
of  one  or  two  operates  upon  all.  They  can  not,  as  a  cla.ss,  with  their  limited 
capital  and  resources,  atlord  to  run  risks  so  ruinous. 

Hence,  rather  than  subject  tlieniselves  to  even  tlio  chances  of  siifTerinft  the 
wroiiRs  indicted  by  Captain  Qnipley,  "of  the  Canadian  cruiser  Terror,"  on 
Some  of  their  associates,  they  iniKlit  prefer  to  abandon  their  just  claim  to  the 
shelter  consecrated  totlieni  alike  hy  humanity,  ancient  title,  the  law  ot  nations, 
and  by  treaty,  and  face  lliOKravciil  peril  and  tlie  wildest  hcas  in  order  to  reach 
their  ilsliiiiti:  grounds.  You  will  therefore  rcpnsent  to  Her  IMajesty'stJoverii" 
ment  that  the  pliieiiiK  Captain  (iuigley  in  tlie  harbor  of  Slielburne  to  inflict 
wrongs  and  humiliation  on  I'nited  Htates  lishcrmen  there  seeking  shelter  is.  in 
connection  with  other  methods  of  annoyance  and  injury,  ex  pel  ling  United  States 
flsiieruien  from  waters,  access  to  which,  of  great  importiiiice  in  tlie  pursuit  of 
tlieir  trade,  is  pledged  to  them  by  Great  Britain,  not  merely  as  an  ancient  right, 
but  as  part  of  u  system  of  international  settlement. 

Here  I  should  like  to  say  that  I  have  gone  carefully  over  the  corre- 
spoiideiice  of  the  American  minister,  Mr.  Phelps,  and  I  helieve  that  he 
presented  the  case  with  great  Ibrce.  I  do  not  know  whether  Ite  has 
changed  Jbase,  too.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  will  now  be  the  apologist, 
like  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Democratic  Senate,  of  the  Canadian 
officials ;  but  I  know  that  from  time  to  time  he  as.serted  in  language,  aa 
I  have  before  said,  verging  to  the  extreme  of  diplomatic  courtesy,  that 
these  transactions  were  without  authority  of  law  and  were  violative  of 
the  treaty.     He  said  to  Lord  Iddesleigh,  September  11,  1886: 

To  two  recent  instances  of  interference  by  Canadian  oflieers  with  American 
fishermen,  of  a  somewhat  difl'ercnt  character,  I  am  siiecially  instructed  by  niy 
Government  to  ask  your  lordship's  attention,  those  of  the  schooners  Thomas 
F.  Bayard  and  Mascot. 

The.se  vessels  were  proposing  to  fish  In  waters  in  which  the  right  to  flsh  is 
exjiressly  secured  to  Americans  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1818;  the  former 
in  Bonne  Bay.on  the  northwest  coast  of  Ne«vfoundland, and  the  latter  neartlie 
shores  of  the  Magdalen  Islands. 

For  this  purpose  the  Bayard  attempted  to  purchase  bait  in  the  port  of  Bonne 
Bay,  having  reported  at  the  custom-liouse  and  announced  its  olijcct.  The  Ma.s- 
cot  made  a  similar  attempt  at  Port  Amherst  in  the  Magdalen  Islands,  and  also 
desired  to  take  on  board  a  pilot.  Both  vessels  were  refused  permission  by  the 
authorities  to  purchase  bait,  and  the  Mascot  to  take  a  pilot,  and  were  notified 
to  leave  the  ports  within  twenty-four  hours  on  penalty  of  seizure.  They  were 
therefore  compelled  to  depart,  to  break  up  their  voyages,  and  to  return  home, 
to  their  very  great  loss.  I  append  copies  of  the  affidavits  of  the  masters  of 
these  vessels  stating  the  facts. 

Your  lordship  will  observe,  upon  reference  to  the  treaty,  not  only  that  the 
right  to  flsh  in  these  waters  is  conferred  by  it,  but  that  tiie  clause  prohibiting 
entry  by  American  fishermen  into  Canadian  ports,  except  for  certain  specified 
purposes,  which  is  relied  on  by  the  Canadian  Government  in  the  cases  of  the 
Adams  and  of  some  other  vessels,  lids  no  application  whatever  to  the  ports 
from  which  the  Bayard  and  the  Mascot  were  excluded.  The  only  prohibition 
in  the  treaty  having  reference  to  those  ports  is  against  curing  and  drying  flsh 
there,  without  leave  of  the  inhabitants,  which  the  vessels  excluded  had  no  in- 
t  nticih  of  doing. 

The  conduct  of  the  provincial  officers  toward  these  vessels  was  therefore  not 


■J 

I 


-.!l 


I  If 


Mi|i 
nil'"'. 


31 


merely  iiiifrien<lly  Hiid  injurious,  but  In  clpiir  iiiiil  plain  violntion  of  thcti>rm«  of 
the  trc'aty.  And  I  iini  inslruilfd  to  miy  tliat  repiiriition  for  tln)  loHses  HUHtnined 
by  it  to  the  ownern  of  tlie  vesm'lM  will  he  cluinied  l>y  the  United  Stales  Oovern- 
nient  on  their  behalf  »u  Hoon  as  tlie  amount  can  l>e  accurately  aHcertuined. 

There  are  several  letters  from  this  minister  of  the  same  character  as- 
serting that  our  fishermen  had  rights  tliere. 

Mr.  i'resident,  these  assertions  are  in  harmony  with  the  construc- 
tion ^jiven  to  the  treaty  of  1H18  by  the  IJritish  Government  themselves 
from  time  to  time.  I  propose  brielly  to  call  tin-  attention  of  the  Sen- 
ate to  this  point.  I  submit  the  letter  of  Mr.  Phelps  to  Lord  Koseberry 
of  June  2,  188(),  paj!;e  415,  in  whicli  he  details  particularly  the  cases 
wherein  the  British  (Jovernment  liad  surremlered  tlie  headland  theory 
and  the  ri<;ht  to  exclude  our  lishermen  from  the  bays. 

The  Hritixh  Ooverniucnt  has  ropeau-dly  rofuHed  to  allow  interference  with 
Anierii'iiii  llshiiiK  vosmcIh,  unle»M  for  illegal  tiHhiii)j^,  and  has  given  explicit  orders 
to  thecdutriiry. 

On  the  Jfith  of  May,  H70,  Mr.  Thornton,  the  Uritish  niininter  at  WasliinRton, 
conmiunicatod  olUcially  to  the  .SeiTetary  of  State  of  the  I'nited  Statew  copies  of 
the  ordiTM  addressed  by  the  liritish  Admiralty  to  Admiral  Wellesley,  coinmand- 
ing  Her  Majesty's  naval  forces  on  the  North  .\nierlcaii  station,  and  of  a  letter 
from  tlie  colonial  deparltnenl  to  the  foreiKU  otlice,  in  order  that  the  Secretary 
nilKht  "see  the  nature  of  the  instructions  to  be  ;vlven  to  Her  Majesty's  and  the 
Canadian  ofllcers  (imployed  in  nuiintainniK' (>rder  at  the  iisheries  in  the  neigh- 
borhonil  of  the  coasts  of  <  'ana<la."  Auioiijj  the  documents  thus  transmitted  is  a 
letter  from  the  foreign  otlice  to  the  secretary  of  tlie  Admiralty,  in  which  the  fol- 
lowliiB  langunBe  is  contained: 

"The  Canadian  Government  has  recently  determined,  with  the  concurrence 
of  Her  Majesty's  ministers,  to  in<'rease  the  striiifiency  of  tliee.xlsting  pmcticaof 
dispensing  with  the  warnings  hitherto  given,  and  seizing  at  once  any  vessel  de- 
tected in  violatioiiof  the  law. 

"Ill  view  of  this  change  and  of  the  questions  to  which  it  may  give  rise,  I  am 
directed  by  Lord  Ciranville  to  re<iucst  that  you  will  move  their  lordships  to  in- 
struct the  ortlcers  of  Her  Majesty's  ships  einjiloyed  in  the  protection  of  the  fish- 
erics  that  they  are  not  to  seize  any  vessel  unless  it  is  evident  and  can  be  clearly 
proved  that  the  olleiise  of  llshing  has  beea  committed  and  the  vessel  itself  capt- 
ured within.'!  miles  of  land." 

Ill  the  letter  from  the  lords  of  the  Admiralty  to  Vice-Admiral  Wellesley  of 
]May  '>,  1«70,  in  a^'cordance  with  the  forego'ng  request,  and  transmitting  the  let- 
ter aliDve  <iuoteti  from,  there  occurs  the  following  language: 

"M.v  lords  desire  me  to  remind  you  of  the  extreme  importance  of  command- 
ing ofticers  of  the  ships  selecteil  to  protect  the  fisheries  exercising  the  utmost 
<ll.screiion  in  carrying  out  their  instructions,  paying  special  attention  to  Lord 
tJranville's  observation  that  no  vessel  should  be  seized  unless  it  is  evident  and 
ean  be  clearly  proved  that  the  ofTense  of  tishing  has  been  committed  and  that 
the  vessel  is  captured  within  3  miles  of  land." 

liord  Uranville,  in  transmitting  to  Sir  John  Young  the  aforesaid  instructions, 
makes  use  of  the  following  language : 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  do  not  doubt  that  your  ministers  will  agree  with 
them  as  to  the  propriety  of  these  instructions,  and  will  give  corresponding  in- 
8triiction8  to  the  vessels  employed  by  them." 

These  instructions  were  again  oflicially  stated  by  the  British  minister  at  Wa-sh- 
iiigton  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  in  a  letter  dated  June  11, 
1870. 

Again,  in  February,  1871,  Lord  Kimberly,  colonial  secretary,  wrote  to  the  gov- 
ernor-general of  Canada  as  follows : 

"The  exclusion  of  American  fishermen  from  resorting  to  Canadian  ports,  ex- 
cept for  the  purpose  of  shelter,  and  of  repairing  damages  tlierein,  purehasnig 
wood,  and  of  obtaining  water,  might  be  warranted  by  the  letter  of  the  treaty  of 
1818,  and  by  the  terms  of  the  imperial  act  r)9  George  III,  chapter  38,  but  Her 
Majesty's  Government  feel  bound  to  state  that  it  seems  to  them  an  extreme 
measure,  inconsistent  with  the  general  policy  of  the  empire,  and  they  are  dis- 
posed to  concede  this  point  to  the  United  Ktates  Government  under  such  re- 
strictions as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  smuggling,  and  to  guard  against  any 
substantial  invasion  of  the  exclusive  rights  of  tishing  which  may  be  reserved  to 
British  subjects." 

And  in  a  subsequent  letter  from  the  same  source  to  the  governor-general,  the 
following  language  is  used : 

"  I  think  it  right,  however,  to  add  that  the  responsibility  of  determining  what 
is  the  true  construction  of  a  treaty  made  by  Her  Majesty  with  any  foreign  power 


i  I 
i:  IM 


'\r 


il; 


II' 


tmwt  remain  with  Her  Maiesty'w  (i(ivuriitnciit,nn<l  that  tlio  dcKree  to  which 
thlH  country  would  iniike  ilHi'lf  ii  pHr.y  I"  tlic  xtrift  eiiforcetni'iit  of  thi^  treaty 
riKhtH  may  depend  nut«inly  on  tliu  hieral  ((iiixIrnctiDii  ofthu  triMity,  linlon  the 
niodiTHtion  un<l  rciiHoniililene.H'i  u'ilh  uliicli  lluwe  riuhtM  arc  uttMerlffl. " 

I  am  not  awnro  thnt  any  inodiflcnMon  of  these  in-^lriK'tionH  or  any  dilt'erent 
rule  from  that  therein  contained  has  ever  been  adopted  or  Hanelioned  l>y  llcr 
AlajCftly's  Cjuveninienl. 

Jndioial  aiitliorily  upon  thir*  (itiestinniM  to  the  name  eirect.  That  the  pnrehaie 
of  bait  by  Ainericiin  n»hurrnen  in  the  provincial  portM  han  been  a  eoniinou 
practice  ia  well  known.  Hut  in  no  ease,  mo  far  as  I  en  i  aueeitain,  ban  a  Hei/.ur» 
of  an  American  voHsel  ever  been  enron'od  on  the  ground  ol'  tl>e  pnrchahe  of  bait, 
or  of  any  other  supplies.  On  the  hcanuK  licloie  tin;  llalil'ax  KiNlierieH  Coinnti.-t- 
sion  in  1877  this  question  was  discuNfed.  and  no  eu-ie  could  be  produced  ol'any 
such  condemnation.  VesNels  shown  to  have  been  comlemned  were  in  all  caHcs 
adjudged  Kuihy,  either  of  HshiiiK,  or  preparint;  to  llsli,  within  the  prohibited 
limit.  And  in  the  case  of  (he  White  I'awn.  tiicd  in  the  admiralty  court  of  New 
Brunswick  before  .Indue  Ha/en  in  1M70,  I  understand  It  to  have  been  distinctly 
held  that  the  purchase  of  bait,  indes^  proved  to  have  been  in  preparation  for 
illegal  lishinK.  was  not  a  violation  of  the  treaty,  nor  of  any  existiuK  law,  and 
afforded  no  Kround  for  proctiedini;-*  ajj;ain!>t  the  veesel, 

I  also  submit  a  paper  fouiid  in  llxecutive  Document  No.  113,  marked 

Appendix  B,  showing  the  constructiou  put  upon  the  treaty  by  the 

British  authorities: 

.Vl'PlSNDIX  B. 

In  such  capacity  your  jurisdiction  miist  be  strictly  confined  within  the  limits 
of  "3  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts  buys,  creeks,  or  harbors  "  of  Canada, 
with  respect  to  any  action  you  may  take  a^ain-'t  .\nierican  iishinj;  vessels  anil 
United  Htates  citizens  ennaRed  in  llsliiiiK.  Where  any  of  the  bays,  creeks,  or 
harbors  shall  not  exceed  (>  KcoKra))hical  miles  in  width,  you  will  consider  that 
the  line  of  demarcation  extends  from  iieitdland  to  heailland,  either  at  the  en- 
trance to  such  l)ay,  creek,  or  harbor,  or  from  an<l  between  given  points  on  both 
sides  thereof,  at  any  place  nearest  the  mriutli  where  the  shores  are  less  than  0 
milesapart;  and  may  exclude  foreitrn  (ishermen  ami  tishiuff  vessels  therefrom, 
or  seize  if  found  within  .>  marine  miles  of  the  coast. 

Juristliclioti, — The  limits  within  whiiOi  you  will,  if  necessary,  exercise  the 
power  to  exclude  the  nnite<l  States  (Ishermen,  or  to  detain  American  tisliiiiH; 
vessels  or  boats,  are  for  the  present  to  be  exceptional.  Ditllenlties  have  arisen 
in  formertimes  with  resjiect  tothennestion  whether  the  exclusive  limits  should 
be  measured  on  lines  drawn  parallel  everywhere  tothe  coast  and  deseribintj  its 
sinuosities,  or  on  lines  produced  from  headland  to  headland  across  the  en  trances 
of  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors.  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  arc  clearly  of  opinion 
that  by  the  convention  of  HIS  the  I'nited  ."States  have  renounced  the  ri^ht  of 
fishinjj:  not  only  within  .3  miles  of  the  colonial  shores,  but  within  3  miles  of  a 
line<lrawn  across  the  month  of  any  ISritish  l)ay  or  creek. 

It  is,  however,  the  v/ish  of  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  neither  to  concede,  nor 
for  the  ^iresent  to  enforce  any  rij^lits  in  this  respect  which  are  in  their  nature 
open  to  any  serious  (juc-'tion.  Until  further  instrneted,  therefore,  yon  will  not 
interfere  with  any  .\merican  flshei-m<'n  ini  loss  found  within  3  miles  oft  lie  shore, 
or  within  3  miles  of  a  line  drawn  across  the  mouth  of  a  i)ny  ora  creek  which, 
though  in  parts  more  than  ti  miles  wide,  is  less  titan  fi  tceoijraphieal  miles  in 
widthat  its  mouth.  In  tlie  case  of  any  other  b.iy,  as  the  Hay  des  Chaleurs  for 
example,  you  will  not  interfere  with  any  I'nited  States  (IshinK  vessel  or  boat, 
or  any  American  lisherinen,  utdess  they  are  found  within  3  miles  of  the  shore. 

"  Aciioti.—Yoii  will  accost  every  United  Slates  ve-sel  or  boat  actually  widiin 
3  marine  miles  of  the  shore  alonjiany  other  iMirt  of  the  coast  except  Labrador 
and  around  the  IMajidalen  Islands, or  within  3  nnirine  miles  of  the  entrance  of 
any  bay,  harbor,  or  creek  which  is  less  thaiH>  (;eoKraphical  miles  in  width,  or 
inside  of  a  line  drawn  across  any  part  of  such  bay  harbor. or  creek  at  points 
nearest  to  the  month  thereof  lujt  wider  apart  than  (i  KCoKraphical  miles,  and  if 
either  (ishiiifr,  jireparinj;  to  (ish.or  havint;  obviously  ('shed  vithin  theexcliisivo 
limits,  you  will,  in  accordance  with  the  above-recited  acts,  fei/.eat  oik'c  any  ves- 
sel detected  in  violating  the  law.  and  send  or  take  her  into  port  for  eondenma- 
tion;  but  you  are  not  to  do  so  unless  it  is  evident,  and  cin  be  clearly  proved, 
'•/hilt  the  ofrense  of  HshiuK  has  been  committed,  and  that  ihe  vessel  is  captured 
within  the  prohibited  limits."     (Sossi<m  I'apers,  volume  IV,  No.  4,1871.) 

Aj*PENi)ix  C. — The  secretary  of  ala'efor  the  colonies  to  the  governor-peneral, 

DoWNMNf;  Sthket,  October  10, 1870. 

Sir:  I  inclose  a  copy  of  a  memorandum,  which  I  have  requested  Lord  Gi-an- 
villeto  transmit  to  Sir  K.  Tiiornton,  witii  instructions  to  communicate  with  you 
i^efore  addressing;  himself  to  the  (.iovernment  uf  United  States  on  the  subject  to 
which  the  memorandum  relates. 


nil!' 


i 


33 


to  which 
ho  treaty 
lutun  the 

(lilU-ri'iit 
3<n>y  IKr 

;  piiri'lm-^0 

,    I'OlllIllOll 

( II  Hi'i/.iiro 
ihcof  l)ivit. 
H  ("omii\i.i- 
(■i<\  ofrtiiy 

II   III!   fllHlM 

liioliiliiti'fl 
lilt  of  New 
I  (liHtiiictly 
iirittinii  for 
^C  h\w,  niul 

3,  marked 
ty  by  the 


n  the  limits 
of  CiiniKin, 
vesselH  mid 
^,  creelts,  or 
imnidcr  tlmt 
r  at  tho  fii- 
linlsoiil'otli 
<  l(-s-<  tliiiii  U 
H  llierefroiii, 

oxeri'isc  ttio 

•ItMUl  fisliiiiK 

hiive  arisen 

iiiiits  8liouUl 

eserihinjt  its 

lie  entrances 

y  of  opinion 

tlie  ri;;lit  of 

3  miles  of  a 

oncede.nor 
tluir  nature 
yon  will  not 
,f  the  shore, 
.eek  which, 
ieal  miles  in 
(Mialenrs  for 
ssel  or  lioat, 

f  the  shore, 
ually  within 
■pt  I,al>ra<lor 
enlriince  of 

in  width, or 
:ek  at  points 

miles,  and  if 
theexclnsivo 
)nee  any  ves- 
ir  coiKleinna- 

arly  proved, 

1  is  captured 
1871.) 

or-general. 
}ber  10, 1870. 
d  Lord  Qran- 
cnte  with  you 

the  subject  to 


The  object  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  is,  as  you  will  observe,  to  give  effect 
to  the  wislies  of  your  Uovnrnnient,  l>y  appointing  a  Joint  commiMlon,  on  which 
Great  Britain,  tlie  United  HtntcH,  tuid  C'uiiaduare  to  be  represented,  wi tit  the 
object  of  inquiriiiK  wliat  oiiRht  to  bo  the  KeoKrapliicsl  limits  of  the  exoiusive 
fisheries  of  tlie  BritiHli  Nortli  American  colonies.  In  accordiinee  witli  the  uii< 
derstood  desire  of  your  udvlsers  it  Is  proposed  that  the  iminlry  should  he  held 
In  America.  .    ,  ,        ,  , 

The  proposal  contained  in  the  last  paraKrapli  is  made  with  a  view  to  avoid 
diplomatic  diltlciiitles,  which  might  otherwise  attend  the  negotiation. 
1  have,  et<j,, 

KIMBERLY. 

Oovernor-Oenerul  tlie  Right  Hon.  8ir  John  YorN(»,  O. C.  B., «.  C.  M.  O. 

We  have  both  Houses  of  Congress  and  we  have  the  Department  of 
State  in  favor  of  our  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1818.  We  have  iu 
addition  to  that  the  fact  that  the  claim  either  to  exclude  us  from  bays 
or  from  lines  drawn  from  headland  to  headland  was  not  set  up  for 
many  years  al'fer;  that  it  was  referred  to  by  Secretary  Kverett  in  1843 
as  a  new  claim  made  by  the  Canadians,  and  then  not  made  by  the  Brit- 
ish. We  have  all  these  things  to  justify  us  in  insisting  that  the  con- 
struction put  upon  the  treaty  by  our  predecessors  is  correct. 

I  think  that  is  a  sufllcient  answer  to  the  Senators  wlio  have  accused 
ns  of  partisanslnp  and  a  desire  to  antagonize  this  Administration,  as 
well  as  a  reply  to  the  undignitied  interview  in  which  the  Secretary  of 
State  recently  said,  if  the  Haltimore  Sun  correctly  reports  him,  that 
the  Republican  Senators  were  actuated  only  by  a  desire  to  embarrass 
the  Administration.  There  is  not  a  position  that  we  have  taken  on 
this  subject  which  has  not  been  taken  by  the  Secretary  of  State  him- 
Belf.  There  is  not  a  position  that  we  have  taken  on  the  treaty  of  1818 
that  has  not  been  taken  by  his  minister  to  Great  Hritain. 

What  do  Senators  on  the  other  side  say?  Do  they  suppose  that  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  the  American  minister  were  simply  making  a 
claim  that  they  in  truth  knew  did  not  in  fact  exi.st,  or  have  they  seen 
a  new  li;;ht  under  the  manipulation  or  the  advice  of  Sir  Ambrose  Shea, 
Joseph  Chamberlain,  and  Sir  Lionel  West? 

I  said  1  would  not  take  time  to  discuss  the  headland  theory.  It  has 
been  abandoned  by  Great  Britain  practically  for  years.  It  is  abandoned 
now,  or  would  have  been  but  for  this  treaty.  Mr.  Tupper  in  discuss- 
ing this  question  before  the  Canadian  Parliament  admitted  that  it  had 
been  abandoned. 

So  I  think  I  may  come  to  the  treaty  itself,  and  see  whether  there  is 
anything  in  the  treaty  that  is  an  improvement  on  the  existing  order 
of  things. 

I  do  not  desire  to  go  into  any  discussion  of  the  right  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  or  of  the  Presiden*;,  more  properly  speaking,  to  initiate  this 
proceeding.  I  say  that  it  was  a  most  remarkable  transaction,  and  I 
think  it  has  no  precedent  in  history,  with  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  about  to  convene,  within  ten  days  of  its  session,  that  the  Presi- 
dent should  select  a  commission  which  should  sit  here  for  months  dur- 
ing the  session,  and  that  he  should  not  send  in  their  names  to  the  Sen- 
ate for  confirmation.  But  if  the  treaty  was  a  good  treaty,  one  com- 
mending itself  to  the  American  people  and  the  American  Senate,  I 
should  be  in  favor  of  waiving  all  these  irregularities  and  of  taking  the 
treaty  as  it  is.     But  such  is  not  the  case. 

In  the  first  place,  we  ought  not  to  treat  with  Great  Britain  at  all  at 
this  time.    Such  was  almost  the  unanimous  sense  of  the  American  Sen- 
ate.   It  would  have  been  unanimously  held  a  year  later,  had  the  ques- 
tion been  submitted,  that  we  ought  not  to  treat  at  all  with  all  tiiese 
TELLER 3 


if 


34 


!';!' 


■!  'I 


I 


i»> 


outrages  unredreiwed,  with  our  sbips  Imiirded,  tuken  into  port,  fined, 
hindered,  injured,  ruined  in  their  buiinestt,  and  further,  the  American 
Hag  palhd  duwn  uud  iuHulted.  Yet  that  has  been  done  without  an 
apology  worthy  of  the  name  for  thune  iuaults  to  the  flag  and  the  na* 
tioD.  We  are  asked  to  treat  with  Cireat  Krituin  upon  this  question,  to 
surrender  that  which  was  incuntcata))ly  ours,  as  I  intend  to  show  when 
I  take  up  the  treaty  in  detail.  We  have  under  this  proposed  treaty 
nothing  that  we  did  not  have  without  it.  We  have  no  opportunity  for 
redress  for  the  wrongs  inflicted.  We  have,  it  is  true,  for  tlic  lowering 
.if  the  flog  what  they  call  an  apology. 

Mr.  Prcisidcut,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  on  that  point,  becanBc  on  two 
or  three  occasions  when  ihisiiuestion  has  been  up  it  has  beru  saitl  that 
Great  Britain  has  apologized.  I  assert  that  Great  Britain  hris  never 
indicated  the  slightest  compunction  as  to  the  Canadian  conduct,  and  I 
<lo  not  know  that  Great  Britain  supposes  she  is  liable  for  anything. 
Vet  we  do  not  deal  with  Canada.  If  au  apology  came  at  all,  it  should 
ome  from  Great  Britain.  But  let  us  hear  what  kind  of  an  apology  we 
gi»t.  I  remember  a  year  ago  and  more,  wlien  this  matter  was  under  dia- 
uussion,  the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Air.  Vest]  said  that  there  had  been 
an  apology.  The  Senator  from  Maryland  [Mv.  Gokman],  who  was 
discussinir  the  question  a  little  later,  said  tha  'here  had  been  an  apol- 
ogy, bnt  he  said  it  was  a  very  unsatisfactory  irpology.  I  say  it  was  no 
apology  at  all.     Let  us  hear  what  they  said: 

WAsHiNaTON,  Decetn!>er  7,  1H80. 

Sib:  I  am  iiistrui'ted  by  tlie  Knrl  of  IddeHleiKh  tocommunicnto  to  you  the  in* 
cloaeil  copy  of  a  dispntoh,  witli  its  incIo9\irefl,  from  the  offlcer  iidii>iiiii<teriiiKtlie 
(iovernnient  of  Canada,  exprc'sxiiiK  iho  roRret  of  the  Doniinioii  (iovernmeiit  at 
llie  action  of  tlie  cuptHin  ol  tliu  Canadian  cutter  Terror  in  lowering  tlio  United 
Stutea  fluK  from  tliu  United  StateiitlsliinKi^cliooiicr  Marion  GrinieH,  of  OloucoHtor, 
.Mh8m.,  while  that  vexael  waa  under  detention  .it  Slielburne,  Nova  Hcoliii. 
I  have,  etc., 

L.  S.  SACKVILLE  WEST. 

Here  ia  the  inclosMre: 

Acting  Oovernor  Lord  A,  O.  Rustell  to  Mr.  Stanhope. 

Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  Oc<o6«r  27, 1886. 
Sib:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  an  approved  minute  of 
tlie  privy  council  of  Canada,  exprvsaini;  the  regret  of  my  tiovernuient  at  tlie  ac- 
tion of  the  captain  of  the  Canadian  outter  Terror  in  lowering  the  United  States 
flaar  from  the  United  States  HHliiiiK  schooner  Marion  Grimes, of  Gloucester,  Mass., 
while  that  vessel  was  under  detention  at  Slielburne,  Nova  Scotia,  by  the  coU 
lector  of  customs  at  that  port  for  an  infraction  of  tlie  customs  reKulations. 

I  have  cunnuunicuted  a  copy  of  this  order  in  council  to  Her  Majesty's  minis- 
ter at  WashinBton. 
I  have,  etc., 

A.  G.  RUSSELL,  OeneroL 
This  is  the  next  inclosure: 

[Inclosure  2  In  No.  .57.] 

Report  of  a  committee  of  the  honorable  the  privy  council  for  Canada,  approved 
by  his  excellency  the  administrator  of  the  Government  in  council  on  the  26th 
October,  1886. 

On  a  report,  dated  the  14tli  October,  1886,  from  Hon.  Mackenzie  Bowcll,  for 
the  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries,  stating  that  on  Monday,  the  llth  October 
instant,  the  United  .States  llshing schooner  Marion  Grimes,  of  Gloucester,  Mass., 
was  under  detention  at  Shelburne,  Nova  Scotia,  by  the  collector  of  customs  at 
tliat  port  for  an  infraction  of  the  customs  regulations;  that  while  so  detained, 
and  under  the  surveillance  of  the  (Canadian  (iovernnient  cutter,Terror,  the  cap- 
taiaof  the  Marion  Grimes  hitisted  the  United  States  flag:. 

Tile  minister  further  states  that  it  appears  that  Captain  Quigley,  of  the  Terror, 
considered  such  act  as  an  intimation  that  there  was  an  intention  to  rescue  the 
veaael,and  requested  Captain  T^andry  to  take  the  fla^  down.  This  request  waa 
complied  with.  An  hour  later,  however,  the  flag  was  again  hoisted,  and  on 
Captain  Landry  being  asked  if  his  vessel  had  been  released,  and  replying  that 
she  bad  not,  Captain  Quigley  again  requested  that  the  flag  be  lowered.    This 


i\  >  ?! 


35 


a  to  port,  fined, 
',  the  Araerlcan 
i)ue  without  aa 
Ittjj  aud  the  na- 
hia  question,  to 
d  to  show  when 
proposed  treaty 
opportunity  for 
or  the  lowering 

becannc  on  two 
IS  beru  said  that 
•ituin  has  never 
1  conduct,  and  I 
le  for  anything. 
,  at  all,  it  should 
of  an  apology  we 
er  was  under  dis- 
at  there  hud  been 
jman],  who  was 
lad  been  an  apol- 
I  say  it  was  no 

,  December  7,  IHSa. 
ilciito  to  yon  the  in- 
r  iuliuiiil»terliiKH>« 
ion  (iovernniental 
owt^rhiK  tlio  United 
■iincH,  of  ti  loucestor, 
Novu  Hoatirt. 

KVILLEWIiST. 


hope, 

[A,  Oc(o6er  27, 1886. 
approved  minute  of 
>vernmeiit  at  tlieac- 
K  the  United  States 
,f  01oncest«r.  Mass., 
»  Scotia,  by  the  col- 
i»  reanlations. 
Icr  Majesty's  minis- 

USSKLL,  Oeneral. 


at  Canada,  approved 
1  council  on  tlie  26tli 

ickenzle  Bowell,  for 
ay,  the  11th  October 
of  Gloucester,  Mass., 
Hector  of  customs  at 
it  while  so  detained, 
utter.Terror,  the  cap- 

uigley,  of  the  Terror, 
ention  to  rescue  the 
n.  This  request  was 
sain  hoisted, and  on 
id,  and  replying  that 
g  be  lowered.    This 


WMrefuflcd.  when  Captain  Qiilgley  himself  lutverrd  the  flag,  acting  iioder  the 
belirf  tliiit  wlillothe  .Vitrloii  Oriini^H  was  In  poNHt*H.>4i(in  of  the  cunlonm  uuthoit- 
tleit,  and  until  her  case  had  been  adjudicated  upon,  the  vessel  had  nu  right  to 
fly  the  United  States  flag. 

Now,  here  ia  the  apology,  Mr.  President. 

The  minister  regrets  that  he  should  have  noted  with  undue  zeal,  although 
Captain  Quigley  may  have  been  technically  williin  his  right  while  the  vessel 
was  in  the  custody  of  the  law. 

The  commitleo  advise  that  your  eacollency  be  moved  to  forward  a  copy  ot 
this  minute,  if  approved,  to  the  right  lionorable  the  secretary  of  Htate  for  the 
co<   nies,  and  to  llcr  MajcMty's  minlHtcr  at  Washington, expressingtlie  regretoi 
the  Canadian  Oovernnicnt  at  the  occurrence. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted  for  your  excellency's  approval. 

JOHN  J.  M(U|;K, 

Clerk,  I'riry  Oouncll, 

Mr.  President,  I  assert  that  no  international  lawyer  in  tlie  Senate  or 
anywhere  will  stand  up  and  claim  that  before  adjuilicution  there  is  any 
right  in  the  Governnieut  seizing  a  ves.sel  to  take  down  its  ling.  It  is  a 
universal  law  of  the  world  that  tlie  Hag  flies  until  the  ad  judication  de- 
termines the  (luestion  of  the  right  of  seizure.  iSo  the^e  Canadian  au- 
thorities siiiiply  regretted  that  Captain  t^uigley  acted  witii  undue  zeal, 
and  then  asserted  tlie  right  to  pull  down  the  American  Hag  whenever 
they  seized  a  vessel,  and  it  is  only  a  question  with  them  of  policy  and 
not  a  question  of  law. 

The  State  I)e[)i»rtraentknew  that  that  was  not  the  international  law, 
for  the  Secretary  of  State  himself,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Mr.  Phelpa, 
declares  that  the  Canadians  had  no  right  to  take  down  the  tlag  until 
it  was  determined  there  was  a  rightful  and  proper  seizure  of  the  vessel. 

Mr.  President,  how  long  do  you  think  they  would  have  been  with- 
out an  apology  of  a  proper  kind  if  we  had  pulled  down  the  British 
flag  floating  over  a  Canadian  flsherinan?  How  long  do  you  think  it 
would  have  been  belbre  we  sliould  have  been  notified  that  we  were  to 
disavow  the  act  of  that  ollicer  or  to  make  an  humble  apology  ? 

Great  Britain  does  not  proceed  in  that  way  when  her  Hag  is  insulted. 
She  does  not  wait.  Neither  have  we  been  wont  to  wpit  when  the  Amer- 
ican flag  was  assailed.  It  is  left  for  this  Administration  to  accept  an 
apri'ogy  which  says,  "We  had  a  right  to  take  down  your  flag;  you 
ou^.it  not  to  complain;  we  think  it  was  a  little  undue  zeal  on  the  part 
of  our  oflicer,  and  yet  the  right  exists."  Out  upon  such  an  apology, 
Mr.  President !  It  ought  to  make  every  American  ashamed,  and  it 
does,  I  know  that  there  are  men  in  the  Democratic  party  who  are 
ashamed  of  it.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  they  seem  to  have  lost  the  cour- 
age to  say  what  they  must  think,  and  what  all  honest,  upright,  brave 
people  must  think  of  such  a  transaction. 

Once  upon  an  occasion  an  overzealous  United  States  naval  officer 
seized  two  Confederate  messengers  going  abroad.  You  may  remember 
it.  It  was  in  the  fall  of  1861.  He  seized  a  British  .ship  because  it  was 
carrying  contraband  passengers,  but  instead  of  complying  with  the  law 
of  nations  and  bringing  in  the  ship,  he  let  the  ship  go  aud  took  out  of 
it  the  men,  and  thus  put  himself  beyond  the  pale  of  international  law. 
What  did  the  British  Government  do  with  us  then  ?  They  gave  us  no- 
tice that  we  should  return  those  men  to  British  control  and  authority 
inside  of  .seven  days  or  there  would  be  war.  They  did  not  wait  seven 
days  before  they  started  by  the  quickest  transportation  in  their  power 
their  troops  to  the  Canadian  provinces. 

There  is  not  a  man  here  who  does  not  know  that  there  is  not  any 
nation  in  the  world  who  would  dare  to  do  such  a  thing  to  Great  Britain; 
and  are  they  to  get  off  with  an  apology  of  the  character  I  have  read  ? 


mTB 


% 


1  i 


%^ 


m 


.16 

I  do  not  wonder  that  the  Honntor  from  Maryland  iiftld  that  It  wiw  not 
a  natiHfuciory  npoloj^y. 

Ktit,  Mr.  I'reHident,  it  i.s  in  ki'epii?^  with  tlie  whole  coune  of  this 
AdniiniHtrntion  on  thiH  qufHtioii.  It  Ih  in  keeping  with  the  whol* 
courHe  ot'tlie  AdminiMtratiou  in  itH  Ui'alinK>*  with  the  HritiHh  (iovern- 
ment.  I  can  not  ofwunie  that  the  AdniiniHtrution  wuHnfraid  to  demand 
a  Htifllcient apology.  I  muHtONHunie  tliatthe  Admiiii.stration  iHnotiiufll- 
ciently  olive  to  indi^nitieH  intlicted  upon  thin  country.  That  \h  the  ex- 
cuHc,  and  that  probaldy  i.s  theonly  one.  If  ithad  bevnNiifticientlyalivo 
to  the  wrongH  intltcted  no  treaty  would  have  been  made,  no  ne^otia- 
tion  would  have  been  entered  into  until  there  had  been  Home  redress 
at  leant  promised  I'or  all  the  wrouu;s  inflicted  upon  uh  by  the  Canadian 
offlcials. 

I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  briefly  to  some  provisions 
of  the  new  treaty  and  then  I  shall  not  detain  the  Senate  longer  upon 
this  subject.  The  treaty  comes  here  with  the  I'resiilent's  approval. 
The  Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  UKAYJsays  it  comes  with  Kreatpre- 
sumptive  weight.  He  says  that  a  treaty  always  comes  with  Kreat  pre- 
sumptive weight  from  an  administration,  and  it  always  basit.  Time 
and  again  a  Kcpublican  administration  has  sent  to  a  Hepublican  .Sen- 
ate treatieii  which  have  been  rejected,  and  rejected,  too,  by  Republican 
votes.  When  wjw  it  that  the  American  Senate  beciirae  subordinate  to 
the  executive  department  in  considering  these  subjects  and  deteimin- 
ing  what  treaties  ought  and  what  ought  not  to  be  ratilied?  With  great 
presumptive  weight  !    The  President,  after  detailing  the  treaty,  says: 

The  treaty  meelH  my  approval,  hecaiife  I  holicve  that  itHiipplieHii  satlHfai'tory, 
practical,  iiixl  lliiiil  ailjiiHtiiiont,  upon  a  IiurIh  honorable  andjunt  luboth]>arliea, 
of  the  difllvult  anil  vexed  c|iieNlion  to  which  it  relateft. 

A  review  of  the  hifttory  of  thin  <(ueNtiiin  will  nhow  that  all  former  attempts  to 
arrive  at  a  common  intcrpretiition,HatiHfactory  toholh  partieM,  of  the  llrst  article 
of  the  treatv  of  October  'id,  IHIH,  have  been  luiNUcceHHUil ;  and  with  the  lapse  of 
time  the  dililculty  and  obs'.'urity  have  only  increaHed. 

•  •**••• 

But  I  t>elleve  thetroaty  will  be  found  to  contain  a  just,  honorable,  and  there- 
fore Batisfactory  solution  of  the  difllculties  ;vliich  have  clouded  our  relations 
with  our  neiKhbors  on  our  northern  border. 

Especially  HatiHfactory  do  1  lielieve  the  proposed  arrauKcment  will  be  found 
by  those  of  our  citizens  who  are  eriKHKed  In  the  open-sea  tlsheries,  adjacent  to 
the  Canadian  coast,  and  resortiuK  to  those  ports  and  harbors  under  the  treaty 
provisions  and  rules  of  iiiteriiationnl  law. 

The  proposed  delimitation  of  the  lines  of  the  exclusive  flsherirs  from  the  com- 
mon llsheries  will  give  certainty  and  security  as  to  the  area  of  their  legitimate 
tleld;  the  headland  theory  of  imaginary  lines  is  abandoned  by  Great  lirilain, 
and  the  specitlcatjons  in  the  treaty  of  certain  named  ba^s  especially  provided 
for  Kives  satisfaction  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  shores,  without  ^'iibtractinK  ma- 
terially from  the  value  or  convenience  of  the  fishery  riKhts  of  Americans. 

The  uninterrupted  naviKatiou  of  the  Mtrait  of  Canso  is  expressly  and  for  the 
first  time  afltrmed. 

I  shall  show  that  the  I're.sident  could  not  have  read  the  treaty  with 

care  or  he  would  not  have  made  that  assertion — 

and  the  four  purposes  for  which  our  fishermen  under  the  treaty  of  1818  were 
allowed  to  eitter  the  bays  and  harbors  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland  within  the 
belt  of  .3  marine  miles  are  placed  under  a  fair  and  liberal  construction,  and 
their  enjoyment  secured  witiiout  such  conditions  and  restrictions  as  in  the  past 
have  embarrassed  and  obstructed  them  »o  seriously. 

I  do  not  wonder  that  Mr.Tupper  pointed  to  this  and  said  with  great 
glee,  "What  will  that  do  for  us  when  we  come  to  negotiate  agjiin?" 
Here  is  the  President  of  the  United  States  telling  the  whole  world 
that  our  interpretation  of  the  treaty  ia  a  fair,  honorable,  and  just  one;, 
and  that  the  treaty  is  all  that  the  Americans  can  expect.  Then  the  Pres- 
ident follows  with  his  explanations.     Now,  let  us  s  e  what  the  Presi- 


id 


37 


it  wM  not 

iFHe  of  thl» 
the  whole 
nh  ISovern- 
,  to  demand 
ilHUotauffi- 
\t  is  the  ex- 
jieutlyallv© 
no  iienotla- 
[)iiie  redress 
ae  Canftdiaa 

le  provisions 
louner  upoa 
;b  approval, 
th  ureiitpre- 
ilhKreat  pre- 
law It.    Time 
ublican  Sen- 
f  licpnhlican 
iibordinate  to 
lid  dettimin- 
>  .  With  great 
!  treaty,  ways: 

rt  II  satUfiulory, 
lobotliimrtie», 

mer  Btteiiii>ls  to 
I-  the  l\r»t  arllile 
villi  the  liipso  01 


iible,  and  tliere- 
fd  our  relftlion* 

nt  will  be  found 
rlcH,  adjacent  to 
under  the  treaty 

rs  from  the  com- 
Ihoir  lenitinmta 
fcv  Great  Urllain, 
jctiiiUy  provided 
,  MibtrnctinK  ina- 
Aniericaiis. 
essly  and  for  the 

the  treaty  with 

eaty  of  1818  were 
i.dland  within  the 
construction,  anU 
Ions  aa  in  the  past 

_  said  with  great 

gotiate  again?'' 

he  whole  world 

e,  and  just  one;. 

Then  the  Pres- 

what  the  Presi- 


H. 


ilent  HAjrs  a))Out  the  coniniereinl  ri^htM  that  the  Hecrotary  of  State  hud 
declared  to  American  citizens  exlNted,  and  which  they  hud  been  en- 
cournued  to  asHert  under  this  AdniitiiHtrution: 

TlM>rlKbtofourMHhi>rnirn  iinilrrtlictri-iily  of  |HlHtlldnolf>xli-n(lt<ithcprociiri<- 
ox-iU  of  illHtiiii'tivti  tlnlifry  MiipplU'H  III  CiiiiiiiliHii  pmlM  ami  hitrliurH;  and  one 
il<<iii,HiiptMm(Ml  III  be  cMHi'iitlHl,  to  wit,  liiiil,  WHM  plainly  ilfiiled  tbein  by  the  oi- 
pllril  iiikI  ilclliiite  \%'<irtl-i  iil°  lilt*  tii'iily  of  |H|S,  t>iiililiHMl/.cil  by  llii>  coiir-v  of  thu 
ni-K<iliutioii  ami  oxpri'NM  ilcclniniii  wliich  prui'viloil  IIh;  conclusion  of  that  treaty. 

Wlio  is  at  Unlit,  the  I'resiilent  «)l'the  United  Slates  or  tlie  Secretary 
of  Slate?     I'diIi  can  not  he  ri;{lit. 

I  now  desire  to  i)ric(ly  call  attention  to  tlie  pri)))iised  treaty  itself.  I 
hIiuII  speak  of  only  one  or  two  sei  tion.s  to  uny  extent,  aipi  1  .sliull  not 
dwell  very  inucli  on  tho-*e. 

Inhriet,  the  treaty  provides  for  a  coinniission.  t  wo  coniniissioncrs  to 
bo  selected  liy  the  (iovermnent  of  the  United  .States,  and  tw<»  to  be  se- 
lected liv  tiie  ilritish  (iovcrnnient,  and  in  case  of  a  disagreement  an 


uin 


pire  to  be  selected.     These  commissioners  are  to  be  appointed  I 


or 


the  purpose  of  delimiting  the  several  bays.     Without,  however,  wait- 
in;;  lor  that,  the  treaty  ]iroposes  tliat  thedeliinitation  shall  be  made  in 
the  manner  described,  and  then  proceeds  to  make  some  of  the  delimita 
tions without  waitinn  (or  the  commi<)sion. 

Tlio  (Icliinitiit^oii  Nhitll  bo  niiiilc  in  tlio  following  iiiannor,  unil  ithitll  be  ac- 
ccptfil  by  botli  tlii^  IiikIi  I'oiilrai'lliiK  partifs  hh  iipplicable  for  all  piirposi'H  under 
Artii'li-  I  of  the  coiiveiilloii  of  Ottobor  JO,  tSlH.  bilween  the  United  States  and 
(Irciit  liritain. 

Tlio  .J  marine  mjlen  nuMitiom'd  in  Arli('l«>  I  of  the  convention  of  October 
20,  INIS,  shall  be  iiiiMtsiiriMl  si'iiward  from  low-water  mark;  but  at  every  bay, 
crcfk,  (If  liarlior,  not  otherwise  HpfrliiHy  provideil  for  in  tills  treaty,  such  :j 
marine  miles  hIuiII  be  nifasiired  scuwaril  from  a  straight  lino  drawn  across  the 
bay,  creek,  or  harbur.  in  thu  part  nearest  the  entrance  at  the  Hrst  point  where 
the  width  does  not  exceed  10  miles. 

The  .Senator  from  Delaware  went  into  an  extended  argument  to  show 
that  :t  marine  miles  was  not  the  present  internationul  law,  and  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  (tKok(JK]  went  into  an  extended  argu- 
ment to  show  that  the  British  owned  all  the  country  up  there,  and 
therefore  allowing  us  to  come  within  the  lU  miles  was  quite  a  favor. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  consider  what  the  international  law  is 

upon  this  subject.     We  had  a  treaty.     We  had  fixed  3  miles.    That 

had  received  its  construction,  which  was,  that  the  smaller  bays  that 

were  (>  miles  or  less  were  inclwled  in  the  prohilrited  waters;  but  now 

bays  that  are  10  miles  wide  are  to  be  included  in  the  prohibited  waters. 

Bays  that  are  much  wider  than  that  are  prohibited  by  the  delimitation 

in  this  treaty,  and  yet  the  President  of  the  United  States  says  that 

these  delimitations  "will  give  certainty  and  security"  to  the  people 

of  the  United  States  who  want  to  tish  in  those  waters. 

The  proposed  delimitation  of  the  linesof  the  exclusive  flsheries  from  the  com- 
mon Hsheries  will  give  certainly  and  seeiirily  as  to  the  area  of  their  legitiniato 
field. 

Mr.  President,  is  that  po.ssible?  How  can  a  fisherman  see  who  is  to 
keep  outside  of  3  miles,  the  line  drawn  from  another  invisible  line 
that  is  lU  miles  long,  being  more  than  (i  or  8  miles  out  from  shore,  and 
how  can  it  benefit  him  any  to  have  these  delimitations?  It  only  opens 
the  door  for  more  difficulty  and  more  confusion  and  more  trouble  on 
the  part  of  the  fisherman.  What  he  could  see  and  might  escape  be- 
fore, he  can  not  see  now  and  can  not  escape.  To  say  nothing  of  the 
great  surrender  of  a  large  area  of  fishing  ground  that  is  rightfully  ours, 
we  are  adding  to  the  embarrassment  of  every  man  who  goes  into  those 
waters  to  fish  by  lengthening  the  line  so  as  to  keep  him  from  the  shore, 
making  it  more  dilHcult  for  him  to  determine  where  he  is. 


38 


Then  follow,  in  Article  IV,  the  bays  which  are  deliniited,  of  which 
I  have  not  time  to  speak  at  any  length.     Then  comes  Article  V: 

Article  V. 
Nothing  in  this  treaty  slmll  be  construed  to  ineliule  within  the  common  waters 
any  such  interior  jiortions  of  any  liays,  creelis,  or  harbors  as  can  not  be  readied 
from  the  sea  without  passing?  witiiin  the  3  marine  miles  mentioned  in  Article  I  of 
the  convention  of  October  L'O,  1818. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  what  Sir  Charles  Tnpper 
says  about  that,  and  why  he  says  that  was  put  in.  Mr.  Mills,  of  Both- 
well,  asked  him  why  this  provision  was  inserted,  and  he  said: 

Sir  Charles  Tuppek.  I  am  obliged  lo  my  honorable  friend  for  liis question, 
and  I  will  Rive  him  a  most  explicit  and,  I  am  quite  sure,  a  satisfactory  answer. 
I  hold  the  delineation  of  a  bay  in  my  hands.  It  is  imaginary,  it  is  true,  but  it  is 
none  the  less  just  what  you  may  meet  with  at  the  mouth  of  any  bay.  This  bay 
is  15  miles  from  mainland  to  mainland,  and  yet  under  the  instructions  of  ray 
honorable  friend  from  Northumberland  [Mr.  Mitchell]  not  to  ro  within  S  miles 
of  the  shore  they  could  notget  into  that  bay.  Why?  Uecausu  there  are  islands 
in  the  mouth  of  the  bay,  and  tlie  island  carries  its  3  miles  of  marine  jurisdiction 
stretched  around  it,  the  same  as  the  nuiiiiland.  I  will  send  it  over  to  my  honor- 
able friend  to  show  him  just  what  that  article  means,  and  the  reason  why  it  was 
necessary,  in  order  to  provide  for  a  possible  contingency  by  which  a  bay  being 
1.5  miles  wide  they  could  not  get  into  it  now.  I  said;  You  do  not  propose  by 
that  10-mile  arrangement  to  enter  a  bay  that  you  could  not  enter  under  the 
(3-mile  arrangement,  do  you?  Certainlynot.  Then  I  gave  them  this  <lclinea- 
tion,  and  that  clause  was  put  in  the  treaty  for  the  purpose  of  giving  efl'eel  to  it, 
and  to  prevent  giving  any  possible  uncertainty.  Now,  sir,  as  I  said  befiuv,  we 
were  met  in  a  broad  and  liberal  .spirit,  and  I  think  the  sentimentthat  animated 
ns  on  both  sides  was  that  we  owed  it  to  each  other  and  to  the  countries  we  rep- 
resented not  to  quarrel  over  points  tliat  could  be  satisfactorily  adjusted. 

That  was  put  in  there,  it  seems,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Canadians,  and 
not  for  us. 

I  do  not  care  to  look  at  the  other  articles,  except  Article  IX,  which 

refers  to  the  Strait  of  Canso. 

Article  IX. 

Nothing  in  this  treaty  shall  interrupter  affect  the  free  navigation  of  the  Strait 
of  Canso  by  fishing  vessels  of  the  United  States. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  declares  in  his  message  to  Con- 
gress that  this  guaranties  to  us  some  rights  that  we  did  not  have  he- 
fore.  It  has  simply  said  as  to  the  Strait  of  Canso  that  it  leaves  it  right 
where  it  is.  Any  claim  thatthe  British  Government  ever  made  to  that 
strait  they  can  make  to-day  notwithstanding  this  treaty.  What  claims 
they  have  made  in  the  past  I  do  not  care  at  this  late  hour  to  undertake 
to  cite,  and  I  shall  not  speak  of  the  character  of  their  claims. 

We  come  now  to  Article  X,  which  is  sui)posed  to  have  great  merit.    It 

wa.s  much  dwelt  on  by  some  of  tlie  Senators  who  have  dinciis^ied  this 

question.     It  provides,  speaking  of  our  vessels,  that — 

They  need  not  report,  enter,  or  clear,  when  putting  into  such  bays  or  harbors 
for  shelter  or  repairing  damages,  nor  when  putting  into  the  same,  outside  the 
limits  of  established  ports  of  entry,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  woo<l  or  of  ob- 
taining water ;  except  that  any  such  vessel  remaining  more  than  twenty-four 
hours,  exclusive  of  Sundavs  and  legal  holidays,  williin  uny  such  port,  or  com- 
municating with  the  shore  therein,  nnvy  be  required  to  report,  enter,  or  clear; 
and  no  vessel  shall  be  excused  hereby  from  giving  due  information  to  Ixiaiding 
officers.    ♦    *    * 

Mr.  President,  is  there  very  much  in  that?  Is  there  very  much  in 
the  provision  that  they  need  enter  and  clear  except  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances? Mr.  Tuppersays  that  if  they  communicate  with  the  shore 
for  any  purpose  they  must  enter  and  clear.  Mr.  .Tnpper  said  that  he 
did  not  think  it  was  worth  while  to  insist  upon  their  entering  and 
clearing;  that  we  did  not  do  that  with  the  British  vessels  which  came 
into  our  ports  under  like  circumstances;  and  be  said  they  took  the  tes- 
timony of  one  of  the  oldest  collectors  in  the  country,  the  collector  of 


39 


)in- 
>r; 
iiig 


in 
ir- 
)re 
he 


of 


the  port  of  Portlaud,  who  iisserted  that  for  thirty  years  he  had  never 
known  a  vessel  to  be  disturbed  for  remaining  more  than  twenty-four 
hours  without  entering  and  clearing.  Whatever  might  be  the  statute 
which  was  recited  by  the  Senator  Irom  Delaware,  it  has  been  a  dead 
letter  as  applied  to  Canadian  vessels.  If  the  fisherman  communicates 
with  the  shore  to  get  wood,  or  water,  or  a  doctor,  or  for  any  other  pur- 
pose whatever,  he  must  enter  and  clear.  There  is  no  concession  theie 
at  all.  That  is  the  very  extent  that  any  nation  requires  of  people  com- 
ing into  its  porta.  This  article  refers  to  those  who  come  for  shelter  and 
repairing  damages,  for  the  purchase  of  wood,  or  to  obtain  water,  and 
then  they  need  not,  unless  they  communicate,  and  as  they  must  com- 
municate it  amounta  to  saying  that  they  shall  enter  and  clear. 

Article  X  also  provides  that — 

They  shall  not  be  liable  in  any  suuh  bays  or  harbors  for  compulsory  pilotage. 

Mr.  Tupper  said  that  the  Canadian  fishermen  were  not  subject  to 
that  in  American  ports,  and  I  understand  that  to  be  the  rule.  They 
are  not  in  New  England.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Hoar] 
thinks  they  are  perhaps  in  some  of  the  Southern  ports.  Perhaps  there 
was  a  reservation  some  years  ago  in  a  statute  to  that  effect.  However, 
I  think  Mr.  Tupper  made  the  statement  that  there  were  no  compul- 
sory pilotage  dues  exacted  here.     I  have  a  reference  to  it. 

Article  XI  is  claimed  to  have  great  merit,  and  to  be  a  very  great  con- 
cession by  the  Canadian  Government  to  us.  It  is  one  of  the  strong 
points  in  this  treaty;  it  is  one  of  the  things  on  account  of  which  it  is 
urged  upon  our  attention.     That  article  provides: 

United  Stiites  Ashing  vessels  entering  tlie  ports,  bays,  and  harbors  of  the  east- 
ern and  northeastern  coasts  of  Canada,  or  of  the  coasts  of  Newfoundland  under 
stressor  weather  or  other  casualty,  may  unload,  reload,  transship,  or  sell,  subject 
tocustonis  laws  and  regulations,  all  fish  on  Vioard,  when  such  unloading,  trans- 
shipment, or  sale  is  made  necessary  as  incidental  to  repairs,  and  may  replenish 
o\ittits,  provisions,  andsuppliesdamagedor  lost  by  disaster;  and  incase  of  death 
or  sickness  shall  be  allowed  all  needful  facilities,  including  the  shipping  of  crews. 

In  1794,  when  we  were  denied  commercial  relations  with  Great  Britain, 
not  only  in  Canada,  but  in  all  British  colonies,  we  made  a  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  which  contained  stipulations  of  greater  value  than  this. 
The  stipulation  then  was  not  only  that  we  might  do  all  that  is  now 
proposed  to  be  done,  but  we  might  go  further  and  barter  our  merchan- 
dise for  such  things  as  we  needed. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  provision  of  the  treaty,  as  Mr.  Tupper  saj's. 
He  says  the  Canadian  Government  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  deny  to  any 
foreigners  the  privileges  tliat  are  conceded  here,  not  the  privileges  con- 
ceded here  as  claimed  by  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  not  the  privi- 
leges conceded  if  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State  are  correct,  but 
according  to  his  interpretation,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  inter- 
pretation put  upon  it  by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HoarJ 
the  other  day  when  he  addressed  the  Senate. 

The  article  refers  only  to  vessels  that  go  in  there  under  stress  of  weather 
or  other  casualty,  and  when  they  so  go  in  they  may  do  what?  Unload, 
reload,  transship,  or  sell,  subject  to  customs  laws  and  regulations?  Oh, 
no,  not  that.  They  may  do  all  that  when  such  unloading,  transship- 
ment, or  sale  is  necessary  as  incidental  to  repairs.  When  they  are  in 
siicli  distress  that  they  can  not  keep  their  cargo  afloat  in  their  ve>«el8, 
then  they  may  apply  to  the  British  authorities,  and  if  the  British  au- 
thorities think  it  is  a  case  of  distress,  of  casualty,  they  may  be  allowed 
to  ship,  provided  they  show  that  it  is  necessary  as  incidental  to  repairs. 
If  they  can  not  make  their  repairs  without  it,  then  they  may  do  it.    It 


40 


is  a  barren  right.  It  is  of  no  earthly  account,  and  was  not  intended 
to  be. 

"In  case  of  death  or  sickness"  they  shall  have  "all  needful  facili- 
ities,  including  the  shipping  of  crews."  All  this  is  dependent,  first, 
upon  the  fact  that  they  are  driven  in  by  stress  of  weather;  tlien  that 
the  Canadian  authorities  think  it  is  incidental  to  repairs,  or  that  it  is 
necessary.  With  the  disposition  that  the  Canadian  authorities  have 
shown  toward  our  fishermen  for  the  lust  fev/  years,  how  much  benefit 
do  you  suppose  our  fishermen  will  derive  under  that  provision  of  the 
treaty  ? 

There  is  another  clause  in  Article  XI  which  the  Senator  from  Dela- 
ware insisted  was  an  unrestricted  license  to  trade  by  fishermen,  or  that 
at  least  was  the  theory  upon  which  he  went. 

hiceiises  to  purchase  in  establisiied  ports  of  entry  of  the  aforesaid  coasts  of 
Caiiadaor  of  Newfoinidland,  for  the  homeward  voyage,  such  provisions  and 
s^ippliesasare  ordinarily  sold  to  trading  vessels,  shall  be  grantid  to  United 
States  fishing  vessels  in  such  ports,  promptly  upon  application  and  without 
charge ;  and  such  vessels  having  obtained  licenses  in  the  manner  aforesaid  shall 
also  be  accorded  upon  all  occasions  such  facilities  for  the  purchase  of  casual  or 
needful  provisions  and  supplies  as  are  ordinarily  granted  to  the  trading  vessels; 
but  such  provisions  or  supplies  shall  not  be  obtained  by  barter,  nor  purchased 
lor  resale  or  traffic. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  insisted  the  other  day  that  this  was  an 
unlimited  riglii,  to  purchase  for  the  liomeward  voyage  such  provisions  as 
were  ordinarily  sold  to  trading  vessels.  This  license  only  applies  to 
vessels  that  have  gone  into  these  ports  in  stress  of  weather.  It  only 
applies  to  such  vessels  as  go  there  because  they  could  not  keep  out,  to 
such  vessels  as  come  in  in  distress  or  by  reason  of  some  disaster  that 
has  ocxjurred  or  will  occur  if  they  stay  out.  It  is  only  to  that  class  of 
vessels  that  this  license  is  granted. 

Then  what  are  they  to  buy  ?  For  the  homeward  voyage  only.  If 
Ihey  come  in  in  the  beginning  of  their  fishing  season,  before  they  have 
had  time  to  fish  and  get  ready  to  return,  and  if  they  meet  disaster 
and  lose  a  portion  of  their  supplies,  they  can  not  go  in  and  buy.  It  is 
only  when  they  can  satisfy  the  Canadian  Government  that  they  are  on 
the  homeward  move,  and  that  they  will  starve  to  death,  as  suggested 
by  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Platt],  before  they  get  home 
if  they  can  not  buy. 

Between  two  great  nations  speaking  the  same  language,  having  so 
many  things  in  common,  do  we  need  a  treaty  for  things  like  that  ? 
Can  Great  Britain  afford  to  deny  to  the  distressed  fishermen  of  this 
country  or  any  other  that  come  into  her  ports  the  right  to  purchase 
supplies  to  take  them  home  ?  There  is  no  nation  to-day  on  earth  that 
denies  that  to  the  distressed  mariner.  Yet  that  provision  is  pat  in 
this  treaty  and  it  is  held  up  to  us  as  a  great  merit,  one  which  we  should 
surrender  almost  anything  to  secure,  and  because  we  do  not  see  it  in 
that  light  we  are  moved  wholly  and  solely  by  partisan  zeal  and  by  a 
desire  to  embarrass  the  Administration  ! 

I  said  that  Mr,  Tupper  did  not  entertain  the  same  views  about  this 

that  the  Senator  from  Delaware  entertains.    I  will  call  attention  now  to 

what  Mr.  Tupper  said  about  it.     After  quoting  Article  XI  of  the  treaty, 

be  said: 

That  was  another  concession.  There  is  no  doubt  at  all,  sir,  that  these  were 
rights  which  under  the  strict  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1818  they  could  not  demand, 
nor  could  they  insist  upon  them  being  granted ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  think  I 
am  within  the  .jmlgmeut  of  the  house  on  both  sides  when  I  s<iy  that  in  tite  case 
of  a  vessel  which  is  homeward  botnid  and  requires  provisions  or  needful  sup* 
jtlies  to  take  her  home,  if,  for  instance,  she  hassonieof  her  rigging  carried  away, 
or  some  of  her  salt  washed  overboard,  and  is  obliged  to  lose  her  voyage  in  going 


41 

hack  to  a  distntit  port  to  refit,  a  provision  that  she  may  ol)'  ain  casual  anil  need- 
ful supplies  of  thill  kiiiti  was  deiuaixlod  in  tlie  interests  of  ^ood  neighborhood, 
and  it  was  not  Koiiig  too  far  to  sav  that  we  would  allow  them  to  enjoy  those  ad- 
vantages. Therefore,  sir,  I  am  giad  to  belive  that  Article  XI  will  meet  with 
the  hearty  approval  of  the  house  and  the  country,  and  that  they  will  feel  that 
we  have  only  acted  with  a  wise  judgment,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  best  in- 
terests of  Canada  for  the  sake  of  reino%-ing  an  international  unpleasantness,  in 
putting  these  provisions  into  this  treaty. 

It  is  very  clear  that  Mr.  Tupper  does  not  under.staud  it  as  the  Sena- 
tor from  Delaware  does;  it  is  very  clear  that  if  this  treaty  is  ratilied  it 
opens  the  door  lor  further  controversy,  for  when  the  man  who  made  it 
on  the  part  of  the  Canadian  (jovernnient  gives  it  one  construction  and 
the  Senator  from  Delaware,  repre-sentinj;  the  Administration,  f^h  Mt 
another,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  this  will  not  cease  to  be  a  subject  of 
controversy,  but  will  hereafter  continue  to  be  a  subject  of  controversy 
as  others  have  been  heretolbre. 

So  there  is  nothinji;  in  that  which  has  not  been  granted  for  more  than 
fifty  years  to  every  Canadian  vessel  in  the  United  States  wherever  she 
has  gone. 

I  come  now  to  a  remarkable  section  as  t«  the  numbeving  of  tishing 
vessels.  I  do  not  desire  to  spend  much  time  upon  it.  I  find  that  we 
are  to  number  in  a  conspicuous  manner  every  United  States  vessel,  to 
have  ''its  official  number  on  each  bow."  It  shall  be  plainly  marked, 
be  conspicuous,  so  that  all  can  see  it,  and  we  shall  make  such  regula- 
tions concerning  it  as  we  may  think  proper;  but  before  they  take  ef- 
fect we  are  to  submit  them  to  Her  Majesty's  Government;  I  do  not 
know  for  what,  whether  for  approval  or  disapproval,  but  the  regula- 
tions can  not  take  efiect,  at  all  event.?,  until  we  have  submitted  them. 
How  long  is  it  since  we  have  submitted  questions  of  this  kind  to  a  for- 
eign power?  Some  years  ago,  about  1852,  when  there  was  some 
trouble  up  on  the  Canadian  border,  an  English  cruiser  was  called  upon 
to  seize  some  American  ves.sels  that  the  Canadian  authorities  said  were 
intruding  and  violating  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  or  if  not  the  treaty, 
some  of  their  local  statutes,  and  the  British  officer  replied,  "How  am 
I  to  know  whether  they  are  American  vessels  or  not?  Are  they 
marked?  "  Now  it  is  proposed  that  there  shall  be  no  trouble  of  that 
kind  hereafter.  They  are  to  be  marked.  They  will  be  marked  if  this 
treaty  should  become  operative;  but  it  will  not. 

Now  I  come  to  Article  XIV,  which  I  think  is  a  very  remarkable  one. 
I  confes.s,  if  everything  else  had  been  according  to  my  judgment,  that 
the  reading  of  this  article  alone  would  render  it  utterly  impossible  for 
me,  with  my  ideas  of  right  and  duty,  to  vote  !br  this  treaty. 

Article  XIV. 

The  penalties  for  unlawfully  fishing  in  the  waters,  bays,  creeks,  and  harbors, 
referred  to  in  Article  I  of  this  treaty,  may  extend  to  forfeiture  of  the  boat  or 
vessel,  and  appurtenances,  and  also  of  tlie  suppliesand  cargo  aboard  when  the 
oft'ense  was  committed ;  and  for  preparing  in  such  waters  to  unlawfully  fish 
therein,  penalties  shall  be  fixed  by  the  court,  not  to  exceed  those  for  unlawfully 
fishing,  and  for  any  other  violution  of  the  laws  of  Orcat  Britain,  Canada,  or 
Newfoundland  relating  to  the  right  of  fishery  in  such  waters,  bays,  creeks,  or 
harbors,  penalties  shall  be  fixed  by  the  court,  not  exceeding  in  all  $i  for  every 
ton  of  the  boat  or  vessel  concerned.  The  boat  or  vessel  may  be  holdeii  for 
penalties  and  forfeitures. 

We  were  told  by  Senators  who  addressed  the  Senate  that  this  was  a 
valuable  provision,  because  we  knew  Just  the  penalties  to  be  attached; 
we  knew  j  U.St  what  the  fishermen  would  sutTer.  When  the  Barbary 
State  pirates  went  out  from  the  African  coast, and  seized  a  vessel  that 
was  sailing  by,  they  confiscated  the  cargo  and  they  confiscated  the  ship 
and  sold  the  men  into  slavery ;  and  there  is  nothing  more  left  for  the 


42 


T.ritish  Government  to  do,  unless  when  it  gets  a  ship  and  the  Ciirgo  it 
siiould  propose  to  sell  the  men. 

S  )mehody  said  when  this  was  under  discussion  heretofore,  that  the 
men  escaped  with  their  lives.  They  take  all  a  man  has  got;  they  take 
his  ship,  they  take  his  stock  in  trade,  his  fish,  and  everything  on  the 
vessel.  For  what?  For  fishing  in  waters  as  to  which  he  ean  not  tell 
when  he  goe.s  out  without  a  marine-glass,  and  frequently  can  not  tell 
with  a  glass,  whether  he  is  within  the  prohibited  waters  or  not.  No 
matter  how  he  gets  there,  anxious  as  he  may  be  to  keep  within  the 
waters  that  are  unquestionably  his,  to  keep  out  of  the  forbidden  waters, 
if  by  wind  or  tide  he  finds  himself,  or  a  Canadian  otiicial  asserts  that 
he  is,  within  the  forbidden  waters,  he  loses  his  ship  and  he  loses  his 
cargo.  1  fe  docs  not  lose  his  life !  What  a  wonderful  condescension 
;'.fter  they  take  all  the  poor  devil  has. 

The  oflense  of  fishing  in  English  waters  willfully  and  corruptly  might 
ustify  the  forfeiture  of  the  vessel;  but  does  it  justify  it  where  it  is 
done  by  mistake?  There  is  no  saving  clause;  there  is  no  assertion 
that  if  he  purposely  goes  there  he  shall  suffer;  thers  is  no  way  that 
be  can  get  out  by  pleading  that  he  was  carried  in  by  the  great  tides 
that  rise  twenty-odd  feet  and  How  with  a  velocity  which  will  carry 
fishermen  out  of  tlieir  soundings  and  beyond  their  reckonings;  and 
yet  if  a  fisheiman  goes  in  there  perforce  of  wind  and  weather  he  is 
to  be  seized  by  these  people  who  have  for  years  shown  themselves 
t)  be  the  deadly  enemies  of  our  fishermen,  and  who  have  declared 
officially  that  every  American  fisherman  who  came  into  those  waters  is 
;iu  injury  to  Canadian  interests,  and  that  they  intend,  if  they  can,  to 
deprive  us  of  the  privilege  of  fishing  in  those  waters.  And  yet  we  are 
told  that  this  is  a  treaty  that  the  American  Senate  ought  to  ratify  in 
this  year  1888! 

Mr.  President,  I  say  it  is  a  barbarism  to  punish  any  man  with  for- 
feiture of  his  boat  and  the  forfeiture  of  his  cargo  who  does  not  go  there 
with  willful  intention  to  violate  the  law,  and  there  ought  to  have  been 
a  provision  in  this  treaty  that  only  in  case  of  willful  violation  of  the 
law  should  fishermen  be  amenable  to  such  extreme  penalties. 

Then,  "preparing  to  fish,"  mending  his  nets  within  the  waters  with 
intent  "  to  unlawfully  fish  therein." 

I  do  not  know  whether  this  means  unlawfully  fishing  within  the 
forbidden  waters,  but  1  will  assume  that  it  does  for  this  argument.  I 
will  concede  that  it  does. 

What  is  "preparing  to  fish?"  Mending  his  nets, getting  ready  his 
lines,  fixing  up  bis  ship;  and  who  is  to  determine  whether  he  is  pre- 
paring to  fish  in  the  forbidden  waters,  and  if  he  is  found  guilty,  what  is 
the  penalty?    They  were  careful  to  say  "for  unlawful  fishing." 

For  prepariiiK  in  such  wiiters  to  unlawfully  fish  therein,  penalties  shall  be 
fixed  by  Jhe  court,  not  to  exceed  those  for  unlawfully  fishing. 

So  for  preparing  to  fish  they  maj'  forfeit  his  vessel,  they  may  forfeit 
his  cargo,  they  may  turn  him  adrift  in  a  Canu..ian  port  to  get  home  as 
best  he  may,  and  they  may  do  it  upon  the  testimony  of  the  men  who 
become  the  ownersof  one- half  of  his  ship  and  one-half  of  his  cargo;  and 
when  he  is  seized  lor  preparing  to  fish  and  taken  into  a  British  port  he 
must  prove  that  he  wa.s  not  preparing  to  fish,  and  he  must  prove  that 
he  was  not  preparing  to  fish  within  the  forbidden  waters,  Thebnrden 
of  proof  is  on  him.  Every  fact  that  is  necessary  to  establish  his  defense 
he  must  prove  affirmatively. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  and  other  Senators  have  attempted  to 
make  it  appear  that  this  is  but  the  usual  customs  law.     This  is  not 


43 


trne.  It  is  a  different  thing.  The  rule  is  that  where  a  man  has  a  li- 
cense to  do  a  certain  thing  iind  he  is  arrested  and  it  is  charged  that  he 
had  not  a  license,  he  must  produce  the  license,  and  the  burden  of  proot 
is  on  him  because  the  proof  is  supposed  to  be  with  him.  But  when  a 
vessel  is  seized  for  being  over  the  line,  when  it  is  seized  for  preparing 
to  fish  or  unlawfully  lisliing,  he  has  the  burden  of  proof  on  him.  Can 
he  better  produce  the  prool  than  the  other  party?  Do  we  not  rever.se 
all  the  ordinary  rules  of  courts  and  all  the  ordinary  rules  that  apply  to 
transactions  between  men,  and  put  him  in  a  hostile  court  away  froni 
home  with  the  witnes.ses  interested  in  securing  his  condemnation,  and 
put  him  upon  the  proof?  Why,  sir,  it  is  a  most  outrageous  provision 
in  the  treaty,  and  I  have  the  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  State  that  it 
ia  an  outrageous  i)rovision  in  the  statute;  i  have  the  authority  of  h\> 
minister  to  Great  Britain  that  it  is  outrageous  to  thus  proceed. 

Mr.  I'helps,  speaking  of  this  very  principle,  said  in  a  letter  of  De- 
cember 2,  1886: 

Mr.  Phelps  to  Lord  Iddlesleigh. 

Legation  op  the  United  States,  London,  Deeemher  2, 1886. 

Mv  Lord  :  Referring  to  the  conversation  1  had  the  honor  to  hold  with  your 
lordHliip  on  the  30th  November,  relative  to  the  request  of  my  Government  that 
the  owners  of  the  David  J.  Adams  may  be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  orig- 
inal reports,  stating  the  charges  on  which  that  vessel  was  seized  by  the  Cana- 
dian nutliorities,  I  desire  now  to  place  before  you  in  writing  the  grounds  upon 
which  this  request  is  preferred. 

In  the  suit  that  is  now  going  on  in  the  admiralty  court  at  Halifax,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  condemning  the  vessel,  still  further  charges  have  been  added.  And  the 
Oovernnient  of  Canada  seek  to  avait  themselves  of  a  clause  in  the  act  of  the  Ca- 
nadian Parliament  of  May  22,  1868,  which  is  in  these  words:  "In  case  a  dispute 
arises  as  to  whether  any  seizure  has  or  has  not  been  legally  made  or  as  to 
whether  tlie  person  seizing  was  or  was  not  authorized  to  seize  under  this  act 
*  •  *  the  burden  of  proving  the  illegality  of  the  seizure  shall  be  on  the  owner 
or  claimant." 

I  can  not  quote  this  provision  without  saying  that  it  is,  in  my  Judgment,  in 
violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  .iustice,as  well  as  of  those  of  the  common  law. 
That  a  man  should  be  charged  by  police  or  executive  officers  with  the  commis- 
sion of  an  oflense  and  then  be  condemned  upon  trial  unless  he  can  prove  him- 
self to  be  innocent  is  a  proposition  that  is  incompatible  with  the  fundamental 
ideas  upon  which  the  administration  of  justice  proceeds.    But  it  is  sought  in  the 

firesent  case  to  carry  the  prdposition  much  further,  and  to  hold  that  the  party 
nculpated  must  not  only  prove  himself  innocent  of  the  oflfense  on  which  his 
vessel  was  seized,  but  also  of  all  other  charges  upon  which  it  might  have  been 
seized  that  may  be  afterward  brought  forward  and  set  up  at  the  trial. 

What  will  be  the  opportunity  of  the  American  fisherman  to  escape 
condemnation  in  a  Canadian  court — seizing  him  for  one  thing  and  com- 
pelling him  to  prove  that  he  was  not  guilty  of  another?  Whyv,  Mr. 
President,  it  is  a  cunningly-devised  scheme  to  confiscate  the  property 
of  American  citizens.  It  is  not  much  better  in  my  judgment,  nay,  I 
doubt  whether  it  is  any  better,  than  the  system  by  which  the  pirates 
went  out  and  seized  the  vessels  as  they  passed  by.  For  them,  at  least, 
there  was  a  chance  lor  a  fair  fight,  but  there  is  none  given  to  these 
men,  either  before  or  after.  Lord  Iddesleigh  replied  to  this  by  saying 
it  was  the  usual  customs  law.  Mr.  Phelps  denied  it.  I  quote  what 
Lord  Iddesleigh  said: 

Witti  respect  to  the  statement  in  your  note  that  a  clause  in  the  Canadian  act 
of  May  22,  IHOH,  to  the  efl'ect  that,  "  In  case  a  dispute  arises  as  to  whether  any 
seizure  has  or  has  not  been  legally  made,  or  as  to  whether  the  person  seizing 
was  or  was  not  authorized  to  seize  under  this  act,  the  burden  of  proving  the 
illegality  of  the  seizure  shall  be  on  the  owner  or  claimant, "  is  in  violation  of 
the  principles  of  national  justice,  as  well  as  those  of  the  common  law.  I  have 
to  observe  tliat  the  statutes  referred  to  is  cap.  61  of  1868,  which  provides  for  the 
issue  of  licenses  to  foreign  Ashing  vessels,  and  for  the  forfeiture  of  such  vessels 
fishing  without  a  license;  and  that  the  provisions  of  Article  X,  to  which  you 
take  exception,  are  commonly  found  in  laws  against  smuggling,  and  are  based 
on  the  rule  of  law  that  a  man  who  pleads  that  he  holds  a  license  or  other  sim- 


44 


liar  document  shall  be  put  to  the  proof  of  his  plea  and  required  to  produce  the 
document.  •  .  ,  , 

I  beK  leave  to  add  that  the  provisions  of  that  statute,  so  far  as  they  relate  to 
the  isHue  of  licenses,  hati  been  in  operation  since  the  year  1870. 
I  hnve,  etc.. 

*  IDDESLEIOH. 

To  this  Mr.  Phelps  replied: 

It  is  in  the  act  to  which  the  one  above  referred  to  Is  an  amendment  that  la 
found  the  proviHion  to  which  I  <lrc\v  attention  in  a  note  to  fionl  IildcsleiKh  of 
December  2,  1880,  by  which  it  is  enacted  that  in  case  a  dispute  arises  as  to 
whether  any  seizure  has  or  has  not  l)een  IcKully  made,  tlie  burden  of  proving 
the  illeKiilit'v  of  the  seizure  shall  be  upon  tlie  •wner  or  claimant. 

In  his  reply  to  that  note  of  January  11.  18.S7,1iis  lordship  intimates  that  this 
provision  is  intended  only  to  impose  upon  a  person  claiminjc  a  license  the  bur- 
<len  of  proving  it.  But  a  reference  to  the  act  hIiows  llmt  .sucli  is  by  no  means 
the  restriction  of  the  iMiactment.  It  refers  in  tlio  Ijroadcst  an<l  dearest  terms 
to  any  seizure  that  is  mn<le  imder  the  provisit>ns  of  tlie  act,  which  covers  tlie 
whole  subject  of  protection  ajjuinst  illeKal  llsliinjj;;  and  it  applies  not  only  to 
the  proof  of  a  license  to  lish,  but  to  all  questions  of  fact  whatever,  necessary  to 
adetermiiiaiion  as  to  the  legality  of  a  seizure  or  the  authority  of  the  person 
making  it. 

There  is  no  mistaking  what  this  act  means.  It  is  not  in  accordance 
with  our  acts.  We  have  nothing  of  that  kind  on  our  statute-hooks. 
Mr.  Bayard's  attention  was  called  to  it,  and  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Pheljjs, 
of  January  27,  1887,  Mr.  Bayard  said: 

Mr.  Bayard  to  Mr.  Phelps, 
Depautmest  of  State,  Washington,  January  27,  1887. 
Sir:  Your  dispatch  No.  416,  of  the  12th  instant,  transmitting  a  copy  of  the 
note  dated  the  11th,  received  by  you  from  the  late  Lord  Iddesleigh,  in  response 
to  your  note  of  December  2,  1M8G,  requesting  copies  of  the  papers  in  the  case  of 
Ihe  David  J.  Adams,  has  been  received. 

******* 

The  concluding  part  of  Lord  Iddesleigh's  note  seems  to  demand  attention, 
inasmuch  as  the  argument  employed  to  justify  the  iirovisions  of  article  10  of 
the  Canadian  Statutes,  cap.  61  of  1868,  which  throw  on  the  claimant  the  burden 
of  proving  the  illegality  of  a  seizure,  appears  to  rest  upon  the  continued  opera- 
tion of  article  1  of  that  statute,  relative  to  the  issue  of  licenses  to  foreign  tishiug 
vessels.  The  note  in  question  states  "  that  the  provisions  of  that  statute,  so  far 
as  they  relate  to  the  issues  of  licenses,  has  [have?J  been  in  operation  since  the 
year  1870." 

It  appears  from  the  correspondence  exchanged  in  1870  between  this  Depart- 
ment and  Her  Majesty's  minister  in  Washington  (see  the  volume  of  Foreigfn 
Relations,  1870,  pages  407-411)  that  on  the 8th  of  January,  1870,  an  order  in  council 
of  the  Canadian  Government  decreed  "that  the  system  of  granting  Ashing  li- 
cense to  foreign  vessels  under  the  act  31  Vic,  cap.  61,  be  discontinued,  and  that 
henceforth  all  foreign  fishermen  be  prevented  from  tishing  in  the  waters  of 
Canada." 

During  the  continuance  of  the  fishery  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Washington 
Canadian  Ashing  licenses  were  not  required  for  fishermen  of  the  United  States, 
and  since  the  termination  of  those  articles,  July  1, 1885,  this  Department  has  not 
been  advised  of  the  resumption  of  the  licensing  system  under  the  statute  afore- 
said. 

This  is  an  old  statute.  I  desire  to  call  atteution  to  what  has  been 
said  about  it  heretofore.  It  does  not  seem  necessary  that  anybody 
should  be  cited  as  authority  on  a  question  of  that  kind.  It  does  seem 
to  me  that  every  fair-minded  man  will  see  that  the  law  is  an  odious  law, 
that  it  is  liable  to  great  abuse,  and  to  bring  our  fishermen  within  that 
law  is  to  expose  them  to  great  disaster.  I  have  here  Mr.  Forsyth's  let- 
ter to  Lord  Aberdeen  commenting  on  this,  and  I  will  read  it  from  Sa- 
bine's Report  on  Fisheries,  because  it  is  the  handiest  book  to  read.  He 
says: 

Well  did  Mr.  Forsyth  say  that  some  of  its  provisions  were  "violations  of  well- 
established  principles  of  the  common  law  of  England  and' of  the  principles  of 
all  juft  powers  and  all  civilized  nations,  and  seemed  to  be  expressly  designed  to 
enable  Her  Majesty's  authorities  with  perfect  impunity  to  seize  and  confiscate 
American  vessels,  and  to  embezzle,  almost  indiscriminately,  the  properly  of  our 
citizens  employed  in  the  fisheries  on  the  coast  of  the  British  possessions."    Well, 


45 


too,  (lit)  Mr.  Kverett8t<Kmntize  it  nspoHHeRsine  "  iioneof  thcfiiiHlities  of  tliclaw 
of  civilized  HtntcH  but  its  forniH;"  unci  Mr.  I)iivin,  U8l)ein|j;  "a  law  of  sliamcliu 
character,"  niul  "ev'ieiitly  du.siKiied  to  IcKiili/.e  iuHrau<linf{  upon  an  induntri- 
ouB,  enterprising:  cIurm  of  men,  wliu  Imve  no  means  to  contend  with  suuli  Bhai'|> 
and  unwarrantable  weapons  of  warfare." 

So,  Mr.  I'reaident,  the  provision  that  they  shall  take  nothing  from 
these  people  who  are  guilty  of  unlawful  tiMhiug,  and  those  who  are  pre- 
paring to  fish,  etc.,  but  their  fishing  vessels  and  cargoes,  is,  under  the 
circumstances  the  way  the  law  is  administered,  an  extremely  baishi 
provision.  But  they  were  not  satisfied  with  that,  and  further  penalties 
are  provided: 

And  for  any  other  violation  of  thelawsof  Great  Britain,  Canada,  or  Newfound^ 
land  relating  to  the  riahtof  tinhery  in  such  waters,  bays, creeks, or  harbors,  pen- 
alties shall  be  fixed  by  the  court,  not  exceeding  in  all  83  for  every  ton  of  tli«- 
boat  or  vessel  concerned.  The  boat  or  vessel  may  be  holden  for  such  penallit's 
and  forfeitures. 

This  is  the  first  time  that  the  United  States  has  anywhere  recognized 
the  right  of  the  Canadian  authorities  to  legislate  in  such  a  way  as  to 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  under  the  treaty  of 
1818.  We  have  asserted  over  and  over  again  that  all  this  legislation 
was  without  authority  of  law,  that  we  would  not  submit  to  have  the 
Canadian  authorities  providing  what  we  might  do  or  what  we  might 
not  do,  except  so  far  as  provicled  for  in  treaty;  and  it  is  a  notable  fact 
that  Great  Britain  never  ratified  or  approved  any  acts  of  this  clwracter 
until  188(5 — until  within  the  history  of  this  present  Administration. 

When  this  Administration  came  into  power  they  were  not  attempt- 
ing and  did  not  dare  to  attenipt  to  enforce  these  Canadian  laws.  It 
was  out  ol'  an  attempt  to  enforce  these  Canadian  laws  as  to  fishing  on 
Sunday  that  the  controversy  arose  in  which  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr. 
Evarts.  compelled  a  payment  by  the  British  Government,  Now  we  have 
agreed  in  this  treaty,  if  it  becomes  the  law,  that  every  petty  British 
North  American  province  and  Canada  and  Great  Britain  can  pass  any 
law  upon  the  subject  of  fishing  that  they  see  fit,  ami  we  are  bound  by 
it.  They  fix  the  size  of  tlit-  meshes  of  the  seine;  they  fix  when  it  may 
be  thrown  and  when  it  may  be  drown;  they  tell  us  that  we  can  nolr 
fish  on  Sunday  or  on  the  Queen's  holidays,  or  any  other  time;  and  for 
the  violation  of  such  laws  the  American  fisherman  is  liable  to  punish- 
ment in  a  Canadian  court,  administered,  as  I  said  before,  by  a  hostile 
people. 

They  may  fish,  as  it  is  suggested,  in  the  open  seas,  as  they  have  done, 
to  which  we  have  pai.l  no  attention  so  far;  butoui  men  are  liable  to  be 
punished  for  violations  of  this  kind  of  legislation,  which  we  shall  be 
estopped  from  complaining  of,  because  we  here  say  they  have  a  right 
to  made  it  it  they  see  fit,  and  we  reserve  to  ourselves  no  right  of  crit- 
icism. They  may  be  taken  into  a  Canadian  court  where  they  can  be 
fined  $i{  per  ton  on  their  vessel,  and  a  vessel  of  100  tons  could  be  fined 
$1500,  and  how  often  may  that  be  repeated  'f  As  often  as  any  officious 
Canada  official,  moved  by  his  desire  to  get  part  of  the  plunder  that 
shall  be  taken  from  these  fishermen,  institutes  a  prosecution  in  the  Ca- 
nadian courts. 

It  is  true  they  have  provided  in  this  treaty  that  "the  ppoceedinjjs 
shall  be  summary  and  as  inexpensive  as  practicable."  But  what  of 
that?  It  may  be  of  some  advantage  to  a  poor  fisherman  who  is  to  be 
ruined  to  know  how  quickly  he  is  to  be  ruined.  It  may  be  also  of 
some  advantage  to  his  Canadian  opponent  to  put  him  through  the  court 
on  quick  time,  that  he  may  try  him  again,  because  he  can  be  picked  up 
for  all  sorts  of  complaints.     I  think  there  is  quite  as  much  for  Canada 


46 


in  that  as  there  is  for  ua,  so  far  as  the  prompt  proceedings  are  oon- 
cerued. 

Is  there  anybody  living  who  has  studied  thisquestion  and  who  knows 
the  temper  of  the  Canadians,  who  knows  the  difliculties  surrounding 
the  dshermen,  who  doe»  not  know  that  where  there  has  heretofore  been 
one  fase  of  conflict  between  tlie  Canadians  and  our  fishermen  there 
willbe  a  hundred  sucli  conflicts  under  this  treaty?  Does  not  every- 
body know  that  we  are  opening  the  door  for  continued  agitation  and 
continued  trouble? 

It  must  be  evident  to  everybody  that  when  we  surrender  to  the 
British  Government  th6  right  to  fix  the  season  in  which  we  may  fish, 
the  methods  by  which  we  may  fish,  the  character  of  the  fish  that  we 
may  put  in  our  barrela,  and  all  this,  we  have  subjected  our  people  to 
such  a  condition  of  things  as  renders  fishing  absolutely  worthless,  and 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  here  that,  in  my  judgment— and  I  believe  in 
the  judgment  of  men  better  qualified  to  judge  than  I — that  in  two 
years  they  will  make  it  impossible  for  American  fishermen  under  this 
treaty  to  fish  in  waters  where  our  rights  are  as  unquestioned  as  they 
are  in  the  Delaware  Bay. 

There  is  one  other  provision  in  the  treaty  of  which  I  will  not  speak  at 
length,  and  that  is  Article  XV.  That  is  where  we  agree  to  buy  com- 
mercial privileges  at  an  expense,  Mr.  Tupper  says,  of  about  $1,800,000 
a  year. 

Mr.  FUYE.     Limited  commericial  privileges. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Limited  commercial  privileges,  commercial  privi- 
leges which  I  insist  Canadian  vessels  have  had  for  fifty  years  every- 
where in  our  ports,  unless  it  may  be  in  some  few  of  the  South  Atlantic 
poits,  and  I  do  not  believe  they  have  ever  been  disturbed  in  them  there, 
but  on  all  the  New  England  coa.st  and  in  all  the  great  harbors  of  this 
country  they  can  go  and  do  what  we  propose  to  pay  to  the  British  Gov- 
ernment $1,800,000  a  year  for,  in  the  removal  of  import  duties. 

The  fifteenth  article  is  what  they  started  out  for  when  they  began 
this  negotiation.  Mr.  Tupper  declared  that  he  came  here,  and  he  sup- 
posed that  what  they  were  to  do  was  to  get  up  a  reciprocity  treaty, 
and  he  cites  Mr.  Bayard's  letter  in  proof  of  it,  and  nobody  can  doubt  it. 
I  do  not  know  that  anybody  disputes  it.  So  there  is  a  combination, 
a  union,  between  the  Democratic  party  and  the  British  party  to  secure 
to  them  legislation  through  this  fisheries  excitement  that  they  could 
not  hope  and  could  not  expect  otherwise  to  obtain. 

I  will  not  go  through  with  this  matter  in  detail.  The  Senator  from 
Massiichusetts  [Mr.  Hoab]  touched  itwith  great  power  and  presented 
it  in  a  way  that  it  seemed  to  me  ought  to  have  made  every  American 
blush  for  his  Government.  One  thing  is  certain,  Mr.  President.  The 
masterly  way  in  which  he  presented  it  caused  the  Secretary  of  State, 
usually  calm  and  collected,  to  forget  the  high  position  which  he  occu- 
pies, and  induced  him  to  submit  himself  to  a  newspaper  interview, 
wherein  he  speaks  of  the  speech  made  by  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts in  terms  more  consistent  with  a  fish-market  than  with  a  diplo- 
matic position,  and  in  that  same  interview  he  takes  occasion  to  say 
that  the  Kepublican  members  of  the  American  Senate  are  not  honest, 
that  we  are  not  truthful  when  we  say  that  we  do  not  regard  this  as  a 
proper  treaty,  that  we  are  moved  simply  by  our  hatred  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Administration,  and  then  he  slaps  himself  on  the  chest  and  de- 
clares that  he  is  above  partisanship,  and  he  only  of  all  people  is  above 
such  small  and  wicked  things. 

Mr.  President,  if  there  is  a  disgraceful  chapter  in  American  history 


47 


it  is  in  connection  with  this  negotiation,  by  which  it  is  undertaken  by 
the  Secretary  of  State  to  aid  and  assist  the  Democratic  party  by  ally- 
ing it  with  the  Canadian  party  and  the  British  party.  It  is  fortunate  for 
us  that  in  a  hundred  years  no  such  exhibition  han  been  made  hereto- 
fore, and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  not  occur  again.  It  was  not  in- 
tended that  it  should  be  known;  there  was  nothing  uuid  about  it,  and 
if  Mr.  Tupper  had  not,  in  his  innocence,  mentioned  the  subject  in  the 
Canadian  i'arliauiant,  I  suppose  it  would  have  escaped  observation  ex  • 
cept  in  a  general  way.  Those  who  believed  this  treaty  was  a  surrender 
of  American  rights  without  eciuivalents  might  have  believed  that  there 
were  some  reasons  for  it,  I  do  not  know  what;  I  am  unable  to  state. 

I  know  that  here  is  a  treaty  made  by  the  present  Administration 
which,  if  it  bad  remained  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  all  through  the 
year  188(»  and  through  a  good  portion  of  the  year  1H87,  it  would  not 
have  sent  to  the  Senate.  I  do  not  know  what  intlueuces  were  brought 
to  bear.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  supposed  it  would  be  popular 
with  Great  Britain  and  Canada  and  whether  it  would  or  would  not  assist 
in  the  coming  election.  I  know  that  it  is  a  treaty  unfit  to  be  made,  and 
the  t  ransaction  is  one  lor  which  the  Department  and  the  whole  country, 
so  far  as  it  has  had  any  connection  with  it,  ought  to  be  ashamed. 

Mr.  Tupper  told  us  that  this  was  but  the  beginning,  in  substance 
that  they  could  not  carry  this  load  all  at  once,  but  we  were  coming  to 
the  question  of  free  fish  and  free  intercourse  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  I'.ritain. 

Thd  President  told  us  in  his  message  that  he  did  not  think  it  was 
worth  while  to  pass  upon  that  question  in  the  treaty,  but  to  make  it 
contingent.  Why,  sir,  the  ''resident  of  the  United  States  knew  that 
he  could  not  modify  or  change  the  impost  duty  laws.  He  knew  that 
the  duty  on  fish  was  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  The  Democratic 
House  of  Representatives  referred  that  matter  in  the  Forthy-eighth 
Congres.s  to  its  Judiciary  Committee,  and  its  Judiciary  Committee  with 
one  accord,  without  exception,  both  political  parties  concurring,  re- 
ported that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  executive  department  to  ne- 
gotiate a  treaty  that  should  amend,  modify,  or  change  the  import  laws. 
But  there  was  an  understanding  that  the  Democratic  party  should  work 
in  the  House  for  this  purpose,  and  they  did  so  work. 

I  desire  to  submit  some  portions  of  Mr.  Tupper's  remarks  upon  this 
question,  which  have  already  been  read  in  part,  and,  therefore,  I  will 
ask  to  put  them  in  without  reading: 

Sir  Chari.es  Tuppkr.  I  do  iiotintend  to  innultbotlilheKreat  political  parties 
of  tliis  country  who  have  since  isrvl  iind  long  iH-fm-e  ninintiiincu  that  the  inter- 
esls  of  Canada— tlje  intei'ests  of  I5i-iti»h  North  America— were  intimately  bound 
up  inobtrtininfjfrceinten'onrse  with  the  I'nited  States  for  onrnatnral  products — 
I  do  not  intend  to  insult  the  two  ffreat  parties  in  this  country  l)y  telling  tliem 
that  tlicy  were  fools,  that  they  did  not  know  what  they  wore  doint;.  Down  to 
the  present  hour  we  have  adopted  the  policy  on  both  sides  of  the  House,  and 
we  have  pledged  ourselves  totlie  people  to  do  everj-lliiiifithal  hxy  in  our  power 
to  obtain  a  free  market  for  Die  iiaturiil  products  of  our  country  with  the  tJnited 
State,  and  I  say  you  must  answer  mo  the  question  as  to  whether  that  was  an 
act  of  supreme  folly,  or  whether  it  was  wise  statesmansliip  on  the  part  of  both 
parties  in  this  country  to  adopt  that  policy,  before  you  ask  me  such  a  question 
as  "  who  pays  tlie  duty?" 

I  say  tliat  under  this  bill  which  has  been  introduced  and  which  I  believe  will 
pass,  for  it  does  not  require  two-thirds  of  the  Senate,  where  the  Republican  ma- 
jority is  only  one  in  the  whole  House,  to  pass  the  bill,  it  requires  a  majority  of 
one  only,  and  I  am  very  sanguine  that  this  bill  will  pass  duringtho  present  ses- 
sion. Modified  it  maybe,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  amendments  will  be 
still  more  in  the  interests  of  Canada  than  as  the  bill  stands  to-day.  If  this  is 
the  case  I  think  we  may  congratulate  ourselves  upon  securing  the  free  admis- 
sion of  our  lumber,  upon  which  was  paid  during  the  last  year  no  less  than  91,315,- 
450.    On  coppor-ore,  made  free  by  the  Mills  bill,  we  paid,  or  there  was  paid— to 


48 


make  it  me«t  the  vIpwpi  of  the  honorable Kentlemen  oiposite  more  correctly— 
StN),949.  On  salt,  S2l,<.K*2duty  wiih  tiitid.  Tliis  in  renilcri'd  friu  by  the  MilU  hill, 
i  am  Hurry  to  lliid,  hh  I  hoped  would  be  the  cane,  lY-oni  the  flrnt  copy  of  tho  bill 
that  cniiii>  to  mo,  tliat  potalooH  were  not  inoliidod  amonKxt  VfK<'tHl)lt-H.  lam 
Horry  to  tliid  there  Ih  a  doubt  Hft  to  whether  the  term  "  vcKetuMuH  not  specially 
«numcrated"  will  not  excliKle  potaloex. 

InKrappliiiK  with  thlH  policy  of  nmlxioK  the  natural  pmductHof  the  two  coun> 
iricH  free,  you  do  not  expect  any  perHon  who  wnntti  to  carry  a  hill  to  put  u  heav> 
icr  load  upon  IiIh  Hhouldern  than  he  is  able  to  carry,  lent  he  may  break  down 
and  do  nothiuK.  You  expect  him  to  take  it  in  fletail,and,aH  I  believe,  you  will 
tlnd  the  policy  contained  in  tliiM  bill  of  niakhiK  thone  natural  produotH  of  Can* 
ada  free,  carried  out  until  you  hive  i)erfcct  freedom  of  InlercourHi-  lu-tweon  the 
natural  pruductx  of  Cunada  and  the  United  Mtatesof  America.  Of  wool  we  sent 
1  iHt  year  I.i'n9,3()t>  pounds  of  one  kind  and  a  variety  of  other  kinds,  upon  which 
a  duty  waa  paid  to  the  extent  of  4Ih;s,H,'S2.  Now,  as  I  nay  on  articles  ofprime  im- 
portance and  iutercHt  to  Canada  the  removal  of  duty  by  the  Millx  bill  amounts 
to  no  less  than  SI .'^lO, I '•*'<■  Vou  will  be  Klad  to  hear  that  I  do  not  intend  to  de- 
tain the  houHO  any  louKer.  In  discharKe  of  the  duties— the  very  onerous  and 
important  dutieit — of  one  of  Her  Majesty's  plenipotentiaries  at  that  conference, 
I  have  steadily  kept  in  view  what,  in  my  heart  and  ju<lKment,  I  believed  were 
the  best  interestsof  Canada.  In  the  measure  which  I  have  the  honor  to  submit 
to  this  hou^c  I  believe  will  be  found  embodied  a  bill  which  it  Ih  of  the  most 
vital  importance  to  Cunada  to  pass. 

As  it  stands  to-day  the  Government  of  the  United  States  have  only  mj*  slfrna- 
ture  to  sustain  the  course  that  hiiH  been  taken.  I  was  not  there  as  the  represen- 
tative of  the  Uovernment  of  Canada,  nor  can  my  signature  to  the  treaty  neces- 
sarily imply  the  approval  and  support  of  even  the  (Government  of  Canada.  I 
occupied  on  that  occasion  the  position  of  one  of  Her  Majesty's  plenipotentiaries, 
charKed  not  only  with  the  re.sponsibility  of  what  T  owed  to  Canada,  liut  also 
the  responsibility  of  my  duty  to  the  eiivpire.  1  can  on'y  say,  sir,  that  I  felt  I 
would  best  diHclmrjje  my  duty  to  the  empire  by  steadily  keeping  in  view  the 
interest  of  Canada.  1  believe,  sir,  that  there  is  no  way  in  which  any  pultlio 
man  in  this  country  can  promote  the  interests  of  the  jfrcnt  empire  of  which 
we  form  a  part,  better,  or  as  well,  us  by  takinK  such  a  course  of  public  action 
as  will  build  up  a  ^reat  British  community  on  this  northern  |)ortion  of  the  con* 
tinent  of  Anicricii. 

I  believe,  sir,  that  we  owe  it  to  the  empire  as  well  as  to  ourselves  steixlily 
to  keep  in  view  every  measure  that  will  conduce  to  the  rapid  nroRrcss  of  Can- 
ada, the  development  of  our  iiiexliaustible  resources,  and  tlie  bulldinK  up  of  a 
Krcat  and  powerful  British  dominion  on  this  side  of  tlie  Atlantic.  1  say,  sir, 
lluit  in  thediseharKe  of  my  duty  I  have  steadily  kept  that  conviction  in  view, 
and  I  believe  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  will  not  only  commend  itself 
to  the  judgment  and  the  support  of  the  K^eat  majority  in  this  house,  but  that 
the  Kreat  majority  of  the  people  in  this  country  will  feel  that  in  the  acloptionof 
this  treaty  we  are  takini;  a  step  that  is  calculated  to  conduce  to  the  progress 
a  id  greatness  and  best  interests  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Tapper  tells  ns  that  the  whole  Democratic  party  of  the  United 
States  is  iu  sympathy  and  accord  with  this  view.  It  would  look  very 
much  as  if  that  was  the  fact.  Democrats  on  this  floor  who  last  year 
took  the  position  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  any  Inrther  legisla- 
tion, that  there  wa.s  no  neces>ity  for  any  further  treaty,  are  now  up- 
braiding us  becau.s'i  we  do  not  see  the  ncocs-sity  of  this  treaty.  They 
upbraid  us  because  we  do  not  approve  of  the  provisions  of  this  treaty. 
The  Secretary  of  State,  who  liad  declared  through  his  mini.st«r  that  it 
was  not  a  (jtiestion  of  a  new  treaty,  but  a  <(uestion  of  the  construction 
of  the  present  treaty,  says  that  it  is  a  valuable  treaty  and  one  that  ought 
to  be  ratitied  by  the  Senate. 

I  denied  before  that  it  was  a  con.struction  of  the  treaty  of  1818  and  I 

declared  then  that  it  was  a  new  treaty.     1  desire  to  read  just  a  few  words 

from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Treseott,  a  prominent  Democrat,  upon  that  point. 

Mr.  Treacott  is  well  known  in  this  country  as  an  able  diplomat,  and 

passing  upon  this  (luestiim  he  says: 

There  is  not  in  this  treaty  .'in  article,  a  jiliruse,  a  word,  which  recognizes  our 
construction.  It  is  absolnteiy  rejected.  The  consequence  is'that  this  is  a  new 
treaty,  not  a  consti  uction  of  an  old  one.  Whatever  it  may  do  for  the  future,  it 
can  not  help  the  past,  and  thus  the  position  taken  by  the  country  through  Con- 
gress as  to  our  reciprocal  commercial  rights  and  the  protests  by  Mr.  Bayard 
against  those  rights  can  tind  no  support  in  any  of  its  provisions,  and  our  claims 
for  compensation  must  either  he  abandoned  or  we  must  begin  over  again  the 


49 


angry  and  UHPlrnn  rerlRmalionn  of  the  laHt  two  or  three  yearn.  Tt  Is  indacd  • 
verv  ciirtoiin  ftict  thnt,  RlthoiiKh  the  iiecenHlty  for  any  treaty  HpranK  from  the 
violent,  iterHinlenl,  nixl  iiniKiyliix  wi/.tireH  liy  tlio  ('aiiadian  and  Newfoundland 
authoritioH,  there  1h  imt  hi  the  whole  treaty  n  reference  to  thene  seizuree  or  a 
■uggestiun  uf  any  right  to  or  any  method  of  compensation. 

Mr.  President.  I  Imvo  iilluded  to  an  interview  of  th*  Secretary  of 
State.  ThiH  interview  purports  to  have  l)een  on  tlie  llth  ot  July  of 
this  year.  I  wonltl  nut  willingly  do  injustice  to  the  .Secretary  of  Ktate, 
and  I  would  not  iiMsunie  that  any  newspaper  article  ex preHsed  his  views 
if  there  were  not  )(0(m1  reiUMiiis  to  .suppose  that  such  was  the  lact;  but 
this  publication  in  the  Sun,  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  ha.s  been  before 
the  country  for  some  time,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  the  Secretary  has 
ever  in  any  manner  indicated  his  disapproval  of  the  sentiments  put  in 
liis  mouth  and  said  to  have  been  uttered  by  him. 

The  editor  of  this  paper  proceeds,  tiefore  he  reaches  the  inter- 
view, t<)  ctuti^ate  the  Senate,  undoubtedly  upon  information  Air- 
uished  hitn  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  then  he  reaches  a  point 
where  he  says  the  Secretary  was  interviewed  and  mode  "  the  following 
statement."  It  is  too  lon^  to  read,  and  I  propose,  unless  there  is  ob- 
jection, to  put  the  w.ole  interview,  including  the  comments  of  the 
newspaper,  in  my  speev-h.  I  propose,  if  this  article  is  not  trtie,  to  put 
it  in  ofticial  form  so  that  the  Secretary  of  State  may,  if  he  desires,  con- 
tradict it.  He  may  think  it  beneath  his  di^^nity  to  deny  a  newspaper 
report,  but  it  is  a  report  so  unjust  to  him  if  untrue,  and  ho  unjudt  to 
the  Senate  if  true,  that  I  do  not  think  be  can  afford  to  overlook  it. 
Therefore  I  will  insert  it  in  the  Kbcord: 

THR  FIHHKRIE8  DISCUSSION— MR.  RAVARD  REPLIES  TO  SRNATOR  HOAE— THK 
ADMINISTRATION  JEALOUS  OV  THE  RIGHTS  OF  AMERICAN  SEAMEN,  AND  HAS 
MAINTAINED  TUEM. 

[Special  dispatch  to  the  Baltimore  8un.] 

Washinoton,  JxUy  11.     , 

The  elaborate  production  with  which  Mr.  Hoar  occupie<l  the  Semite  yester- 
day afternoon  l>eiirM  the  murks  <if  most  careful  prcpiirulion.  It  i^  uixlcniahly 
able  and  hit(uniuus,ultliouKli  anything  but  iiigenuouH.  It  will  be  usnl  ns  acam- 
paign  document,  as  will  various  of  the  speeches  of  other  Republican  Senators 
on  the  fisheries  treaty.  The  crusade  against  the  treaty  inaugurated  on  the  He- 
pul>lican  aide  of  the  Senate  is  piilpably  dislionest.  The  evidences  are  thick  that 
had  it  be —  legotiiited  by  a  Republican  administration  it  would  have  been  de- 
fended as  solidly  l>y  them  as  it  is  now  denounced. 

Unbiased  public  sentiment  in  New  England,  according  to  all  reliable  reports, 
steadily  tends  to  approve  of  its  provisions.  But  witli  the  desire  and  hope  of 
making  political  capital  and  preventing  a  Democratic  Administration  from  hav- 
ing the  honor  of  reconciling  internatiom.l  ditferenccs,  which  at  one  time  threat- 
ened to  lead  to  such  serious  results,  the  Senate  Repubiica'xs  have  deliberately 
addressed  themselves  to  the  tartk  of  falsifying  facts,  perverting  argument,  and 
obstructing  a  settlement  which  they  know  in  their  hearts  abates  not  one  jot  or 
tittle  of  American  rights  and  American  honor.  If  they  w?re  sincere  in  their 
denunciation  of  the  treaty  they  would  reject  it  outright,  as  they  have  the  fnll 
power  to  do.  To  the  contrary,  the  programme  is  said  to  be  to  exhaust  all  the 
vocabulary  of  vituperation  and  misrepresentation  upon  it,  to  be  used  as  cam- 
paign literature,  and  then  postpone  its  further  consideration  until  December 
next.  Should  the  Senate  reject  the  treaty,  there  ar*;  goodgroundsfor  belief  that 
the  President  would  immediately  put  into  execution  the  provisions  of  the  re- 
taliation act. 

Although  BO  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  this  act  ^nd  the  failure  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive to  avail  of  it  by  Republican  Senators  and  members  from  New  England, 
it  is  the  very  last  thing  they  want  him  to  do,  for  it  would  injure  New  England 
ten  times  more  than  it  would  Canada.  In  all  probability  Senators  Fryr  and 
Hoar  would  be  among  the  flrst  to  rush  to  the  White  House  and  beseech  the 
Presi  lent  to  withdraw  his  proclamation.  A  very  striking  illustration  of  hon- 
est sentiment  in  Now  Kiiglan<l  on  the  subject  of  the  treaty  is  found  in  the  action 
of  the  Democrats  of  Maine.  Their  nominee  for  governor  is  Mr.  Putnam,  one  of 
the  commissioners  who  negotiated  it,  and  their  platform  tnderses  the  treaty  in 

TELLER 4 


50 


■(•iigth  itiiil  l)rt>M<Uli,  without  timilillcMlioii  or  iiiMenilmfint.  Mr.  Putnam  in  mkk- 
liiKoneof  tlio  moNt  lively  »iiil  Hiiliiiateil  chiivuiihuh  that  iiaw  ever  orciirrnd  In 
the  H  Mt)>  1)1  Miiliie.  mill  wherever  he •penkN  he  luukeii  the  treaty  ndiHttiiutUsuc, 
He  writeM  hitre  that  there  have  never  been  larger  or  mure  enthUMlaiitlo  meet* 
hiira  In  (lie  HlHte. 

Other  Malnti  I>cm<K!r»t«  nciid  word  here  that  the  Uepiihlicnn  majority  wIlIlM 
materially  <!Ut  down.  If  notentlrely  wlued  out.  i'erhapit  tliese  iiredietlonamay 
l>e  regarded  uN  tuo  HaiiKnine,  hut  lliu  taiit  of  hlg  Deniouratle  nieetinui  and  in- 
leiiHe  piihlic  entliiiNianm  ia  quite  aufflcleni  |>riM>r  that  tliere  la  not  a  universal 
deniro  in  Maine  to  crucify  Cleveland  and  Hayard  for  aurrendering  everything 
t4>  ('luiada,  aa  Henator  Kkvk  wanta  ua  to  hellevo.  Henator  Huau'h  remarkable 
niiit-tiitonient  of  facta  will,  of  cuurne,  be  rtolied  to  in  due  time  by  Henatora  on 
tlie  other  aide.  He  aeeiiied  to  take  eNpRcial  pleaaure  In  attacking  and  miarep- 
reHenting  the  action  of  Hecrelary  Hayard.  In  view  of  the  important  queatlona 
involved  and  the  pulilic  intereat  the  commenlNof  the  Secretary  on  Mr.  HoAR'a 
apeech  will  be  eagerly  read.  In  uonveraation  with  yuur  correapundeut  on  the 
auhject  livday  Mr.  Hayard  nald  : 

"It  ia  hardly  worth  the  trouble  to  deny  the  uttoranoea  ot  men  who  willfully 
pervert  the  truth  to  suit  their  own  purpoaei. 

"  The  remarkn  of  .Senator  Hoak  are  diaeiigenuoua  in  the  extreme;  thea|>eecb 
ia  a  hyalerical  Mcrenin  fmni  beginning  to  etui.  Hiaatutenienta  are  moat  untrue, 
moat  unfair.  He  makes chargea  wliiih  he  niunt  know  to  l)e  without  founda- 
tion, aa  the  full  recorda  concerning  them  iru  in  the  arohiveaof  the  Henate  in 
the  form  of  executive  docuinenta.  ilia  dlHctnirae  ia  more  barren  of  fairneaa  and 
honestv  than  any  document  I  have  known,  wliich  conaumed  three  weeka  in 
the  preparation,  and  aiippoaed  to  be  the  reault  of  reaearch  for  the  truth  otdy. 
It  la  not  to  l)e  wondered  that  we  failed  to  conault  with  the  New  Kngiaiid  Hena- 
tora aa  to  the  nature  of  Ihu  negutlationa  with  the  Uritiah  and  Ciintniian  pro* 
tocollHta,  Wo  hardly  nock  roaes  where  tliorna  only  ahi<le,  nor  do  wo  go  to 
enemiea  for  friendly  advice.  Mr.  Inoai.i-h  on  one  oceaalon  aaked  whether  It 
ahould  l)e  blood  or  negotiation.  Mr.  Ki»iuni>m  replied,  '  Neither.*  These  men 
were  sworn  to  dofeatany  attempt  to  settle  exiating  ditllcult)'.  Kvidently  their 
purpose  was,  and  ia.  to  einliiirras.'*  the  Ailuilnialration.  Waaittoauch  men  tliat 
we  sliould  turn  for  friendly  cDunwl? 

"Mr.  HoARavera  that  this  Department  declined  to  furnixh  the  .Senate,  in  re- 
sponse to  resolution  calling  therefor,  the  proposal  and  counter  proposals  made 
while  the  joint  commission  was  in  seaaion.  This  ia  HliMolnt«<ly  untrue.  As  Is 
usual  in  such  cases  It  was  agreed  that  the  proceedinga  of  the  ('«)inmis-.ion  should 
be  regarded  aa  of  a  strictly  contldentlal  nature.  The  meetings  were  to  he  of  a 
purely  iniormal  charav.'ter,  and  when  it  was  dcennMl  advisalile  to  publish  iiiiyuf 
the  conclusions  reached  or  pioiiosals  matle,  it  was  not  to  In-  done  until  tlic  writ- 
ten statement  had  been  signed  by  all  the  protocollsts.  I  have  already  anawerx>d 
this  charge.  My  statement  is  printed  in  Kxecntive  Document  127  published  by 
the  Senate  March  2li,  l.SXH,  it  being  an  answer  to  n  Senate  r<'solulw>n  caliiUH:  for 
the  transmission  of  copies  of  the  minutes  and  daily  i>r(it<n-ols  of  the  meetitngof 
the  commissioners  who  negotiated  the  treaty  with  Ori'iil  Hritaiii. 

"In  that  letter  I  stated  :  '  In  conformity  with  tUr  invariable  course  pursued  in 
previous  negotiations  wlien  the  conference  nut  it  was  agreed  thatan  honorable 
conHdence  should  be  maintained  in  its  deli)H>ruii<>n<i,  and  that  only  results 
should  1)6  announced,  and  such  other  matters  as  the  joint  protoooliats  should 
sign  under  the  direction  of  the  plenipotentiarlea.  With  this  understanding, 
which  was  .strictly  kept,  ilie  disciiasions  of  the  conference  proceeded,  tlirougii 
its  numerous  and  prolongr'd  sessions,  %vith  that  frecdo  and  uniformity  in  the 
exchange  of  views  which  the  nature  of  the  negotiation  reqidred,  and  without 
which  its  progress  would  have  been  miiterially  humpcred  and  any  agreement 
rendered  very  diHicult  of  attainment.  No  stenographer  was  employed,  and  no 
minutes  or  daily  protocols  were  ngree<l  upon  and  signed  i)y  the  joint  protcol- 
ists  other  tlian  those  already  traiiHiuitled  to  the  Senate. 

" '  Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  some  members  of  the  conference  at  once 
left  the  city  under  the  pressiireof  other  dutics.and  it  is  thus  probable  that  some 
statements  were  excluded  that  otherwise  miglit  have  been  |ilaced  in  the  joint 
protocols.  After  the  conference  had  finally  adjourned  anti  Sir  (Charles  Tupper 
liad  returned  to  Ottawa  a  request  was  received  through  the  British  minist<^'r  that 
assent  be  given  to  the  publication  of  a  certain  proposal  which  had  been  submit- 
ted by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  and  declined  by  the  Aniericttn.  I  inclose  a 
copy  of  the  papers  referred  to.  and  they  .were  printed  In  the  executive  docu- 
ment. These  were  at  the  disposal  of  Senator  HoAB,  and  prove  his  charge  to 
have  been  utterly  unfounded.  (  will  explain  to  you  the  reasons  which  led  me 
to  grant  the  permission  to  print  t  he  proposal  made  by  Sir  Charles Tupper,  which 
Is  aa  follows ; 

'"That  with  the  view  of  removing  all  causes  of  difference  in  connection  with 
the  fisheries  it  is  proposed  by  Her  Moijestv's  plenipotentiaries  that  the  tishermen 
of  both  countries  shall  have  all  the  privileges  enjoyed  during  the  existence  of 
the  fisheries  articles  of  the  Washington  treaty,  in  consideration  of  a  mutual  ar- 


61 


nuiKrtiiriit  iiroviillnK  fur  urcuu-r  Crrcilotii  of  coiiiinfrilitl  IrilrrcuiirM'  I'ctuciii 
tlif«  United  Htatc'N  hikI  ChiiikIu  iiimI  NcwIoiiimIIiiihI.' 

"  TIiIh  proiMmltliiii  wiih  (It'clliicil  heciuiMU  it  ii<'t'<'>tnitiilt'<l  iiii  iiiljUMtiiieiil  cif  tlic 
lirfHciil  tHrKT  ol'  tli»  L'iiilc<l  Hliitci  liy  Coiiki'i'mhiihiuI  uctinii.  wl'ileli  iiilliixlnirtit 
WHx  c'liimldrreil  li>  !>«•  iiiiiiiircNily  irii|ink('lU'iil>l<' <)r  iii'<'<iiii|illNlitnciit  tlirmiKli  the 
form  of  tr«Hly  iin<lcr  llio  clri'iiiiiMluiicrt  tlioii  t-xIxliiiK- 

*  Mir  (vhiirlvH  'rii|it><^r  wiix  Kri-ntly  liitcrfHtcil  in  (lit-  ni'ceplniicfitf  tliln  |irii|ii>Mul, 
wlilcli  liiid  for  Itn  olijcot  (ho  iibullMhrncnt  of  thi-  duly  on  llHh  and  llnh  oil.  IIIh 
irov<'rnmtMit  Ki'<'ntly  drHircd  (hut  iin  iirriinK*'nicnl  (o  (hiH  end  ithonld  lii^  inHdi*. 
'I'luTcfore,  when  Hlr  CharlrM  Tu|>|mt  riMuriH-d  hotnt-,  hi*  whu  confronted  with  the 
denmnd, '  VVht-ru  Ih  thu  frcu  lUh  lind  frt't^  IImIioII  yini  |irornlHfd  !<■  olitiilii  fornx?' 
'I  did  not  RUcveud,' ho  WHH  olillifed  to  unNw«>r,  'but  I  nuide  th<>  t-D'ort.'  To 
provo  (hat  lie  hnd  endfuvorcd  to  lU'rornpHHh  that  whit^li  tlio  pfoph-  mo  Krriidv 
di-sirod  hn  iiHkfd  for  pormlHHion  to  print  IiIh  propomil  itnd  our  dccllniitlitn.  ft 
WHH  liiit  fair  (OKrHhl  thu  r<M|iicHt,  Hml  It  wiih  Kriintt-d.  TIu-hc  UwIh  were  knotvn 
to  Mr  IIuAB,  or  uoiild  have  iK't-n  It'iirncd  willi  no  trotihle  \vhiil«-ver. 

"It  iHtriie  that  I  inado  iioatt<>iniitl<iHe('ur<i  therlKhtto  tUh  in  tlii^liirimljctlonal 
WHl»'r»  of  Canada.  To  ol)tain  thiM  conccNMlon  it  wim  r»'<pilrt'd  thai  Wf  acTPih-  to 
the  dfinand  ul'  thu  Canadian  (lovvrnintMil  tliat  Kh  llnh  and  tlHh-oll  Ix^  allowed 
to  t'ntt-r  Into  our  portB  free  of  duty,  I  for  one  did  not  propoHu  to  accede  to  any 
dennind.  We  determined  to  ohtain  our  riKhtM,  nolhiiiK  more,  and  It  lian  cont 
the  rnlteclMlatexnothinK  to  do  ho.  What  a  contraHt  to  the  rcMiiltof  tlie  Halifax 
commlMion  which  met  in  1H7I,  and  of  which  Henator  lioAK'a  brother  waH  a 
member.  On  that  ocoanion  the  Anierl  an  prolocollHlH  pahl  for  the  privileKt^  of 
llHJiinKwIthin  the3-mlle  limitfortwelve  yearn  3.'^,<I(II>,(MI0  and  abolished  theduty 
on  tub  and  HhIi-oII.  I'rovluiia  to  the  meet  iik  of  the  coninilHMion  a  HritiKh  fleet 
hiid  Heizi'd  a  number  of  American  vesoelH,  but  no  redre»H  wan  obtained  or  even 
demanded.  The  ratill»<ttiuii  oi  thia  treaty  waH  atfreed  upon  by  a  Kepulilican 
Henate.  The  ohar.iiinK  coiiNlHtency  of  Henator  lIOAit  Ik  liere  anparent.  While 
at  one  time  he  favored  free  HHh  and  free  oil,  when  he  learned  that  ncuotiationM 
were  to  be  entered  Into  concernhiK  the  flsherleg  be  Introduced  the  following 
reHolutU)n  in  the  H«'nate,  February  24,  1887: 

"  '  NtJiotvrd,  That  it  Im  the  Ju<l|rment  of  the  **inia.""  that  under  present  clrcum- 
Btancei  no  neRotlation  should  ue  un')'  .tlfccn  with  Great  Britain  in  regard  lu 
exlHtinK  dinicultleH  with  her  province  .  i  (  »nada  which  liati  for  IIh  object  the  re- 
duction, cluinKe.  or  alMillllon  o^Any  of  o-ur  exiMtluK  dutiet)  on  importH. ' 

"Now  I  he  Henator  ceuHurea  file  i>r)ia.rtmeiit  for  failing  to  obtain  Ihe  o<<>nceiu 
aion,  which  he  knew  depended  ii^iion  tK«>  abolllion  of  the  duty  on  tinh  and  tlHh- 
oil.  It  wait  amoatimpiident  reNMiutioKi.aH  well  an  iiiconslHtent,  forthePrcNident 
wuM  at  lil>erty  to  enter  Into  aii<.  iie|[i>l(iation  bo  Haw  Ht.  Ah  a  matter  of  fact,  no 
Bitne  man  would  Kive  SfViilitK)  «  war  for  Iho  privlleKo  ot  flHhiiiK  within  the  3- 
mile  limit,  notwitlmtandiiiK  ^h«  eiiurmoUH  hiiiii  paitifor  the  concetwion  by  the 
commlHHlon  of  1871.  I  did  not  consult  with  the  New  Kn^lund  Senators,  but  I 
did  hear  the  opinions  on  this  point  of  men  known  to  be  thoroughly  convernant 
with  the  subject.  ProfesMtr  Kairil  told  me  that  the  men  I  had  here  in  connec- 
tion with  the  3-mlle  limit  queHtloii  knew  more  about  the  tlHliery  (itiestion 
than  any  one  eUe  in  New  KiiKland.  They  told  me  the  privileKe  was  value- 
less. Moreover,  there  is  areporl  wliicb  .Mr.  lIoAKiniKht  have  read  coniinKfrona 
a  committee  of  liepiililieaii  H«'!iatorH.  which  aluo  avoWHlheprivile((o  to  be  o'  no 
value.  I  therefore  had  the  best  of  inforniation  and  advlcean  to  the  wortl-  i>i  the 
concession  which  once  cost  SR.WKi.lKlO. 

"  It  is  not  true  that  tlie  Htate  Department  does  not  press  clainm  for  danuaKes. 
The  case  referred  to  by  Mr. Hoar  iHthat  which  was  covered  by  the  tollowinK  para- 
lO'Hphofm^  letter  to  the  Senate  published  in  Kxecutive  Document  No.  127.  tfarch 
26,1888:  '  Kvery  point  submitted  to  the  conference  is  covered  by  the  paper  now 
in  possession  of  the  Senate,  excepting  the  question  of  damages  Hustained  by  our 
fishermen,  which,  beiuK  met  by  the  counter  claim  for  damaKes  to  British  ves- 
sels in  Bering  Hea,  was  left  for  future  settlement.'  This  was  determined  the 
best  course  tiiat  could  be 'pursued  by  the  coinmiHHion.  As  their  claim  exceeded 
ours  I  WIIH  very  willing  to  agree  to  this.  Senator  Hoak  also  refers  to  the  case 
of  the  BridKewater.  VVlthin  two  days  after  the  case  was  reported  to  this  De- 
partment the  claim  for  damages  presented  by  the  owners  of  the  vessel  was  on 
its  way  to  Kngland. 

"The  British  Oovernment  is  now  investigating  the  case.  Again  he  charges 
that  1  allowed  the  flac  of  an  American  vessel  to  be  hauled  down  by  the  officers 
of  a  British  cruiser.  For  tliait  act  this  country  received  a  full  apology  from  Kngw 
land.  As  much  ctui  not  be  said  when  indignities  were  heaped  upon  American 
seamen  in  years  gone  by.  The  Administration  is  jealous  of  the  rights  of  Amer- 
lean  seamen  and  has  maintained  them.  There  was  more  trouble  of  this  char- 
acter during  General  (Grant's  administrations  than  there  has  been  In  Mr.  Cleve- 
land's. 

"  No  provision  was  inserted  in  the  treaty  toprevent  theorderingoff  of  Ameri- 
can veasela  from  the  jurisdictional  waters  of  Canada,  because  the  surrendering 
of  the  headland  right  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  rendered  such  provision 
•  ■MiicceHsnry.     'macine  a  line  drawn  fro'n  oii"  headland  of  Prince  Kdward'B 


Islaixl  to  the  other.  It  woiiUI  he  ithoiit  10)  miles  lotiK-  It  would  inclose  at  th« 
farthest  point  from  shore  about  5il  mi leH  of  water.  Under  the  old  riKht.s  the 
Canadian  Government  could  order  beyond  that  line  any  American  vessel  that 
happened  to  get  within  it.  This  rijjiht  lias  been  surrendered.  For  tliis  reason 
it  was  not  necessary  to  provide  au;ainst  the  orderiiiH;  oH'of  vessels. 

"  Henator  Hoar  did  not  read  Hir  Charles  Tnpper's  statement  with  the  proper 
knowledge  of  tlie  meaning  of  Knglish  words  or  he  would  not  have  made  ihe 
rash  statement  that  that  gentleman  said  I  made  promises  for  the  President, 
House  of  Representatives,  and  Democratic  party  as  to  what  would  be  done  for 
Oreat  Britain  and  Canada.  Hir  Charles's  speech  contains  no  such  statement.  I 
did  tell  Sir  Charles  Topper  that  when  Canada  treated  American  citi/.ens  tu  ily 
he  might  then  expect  some  steps  looking  to  the  esiab.ishment  of  more  friendly 
relations  between  the  two  countries. 

"  For  my  own  part  I  favor  reciprocity  with  Canada.  The  existing  conditions 
are  absurd.  We  pay  Canada  for  our  coal  and  we  pay  her  for  hers.  A  duty  is 
paid  us  on  Canadian  fish  and  we  Iiave  to  pay  Canada  a  duty  on  our  llsh.  It  is 
manifestly  wrong.  Reciprocity  has  been  favored  by  such  men  as  Webster, 
.Miu'cy,  Everett,  Arthur,  Frelinghuyaen,  and  many  others.  Some  of  the  Repiil>- 
licans  go  so  far  as  to  favor  commercial  imion. 

"There  is  one  statement  I  wish  to  make  particularly  emphatic,  and  that  is.  the 
American  fishermen  have  under  the  treaty  every  riglit  of  value  to  them,  and 
the  Government  has  been  put  to  no  expense  thereby.  Their  interests  will  lie 
guarded  and  noattempt  todeprivethemof  their  rights  tolerateil.  It  is  my  hope 
that  all  trouble  will  be  ended  by  the  establishment  of  full  reciprocity  between 
Canada  and  the  United  States.  I  had  hoped,  as  a  step  toward  tliis  end,  free  tish 
and  free  oil  would  have  been  one  of  the  provisions  of  the  Mills  bill,  and  trust 
that  it  may  yet  be  inserted."— BdViimore. Sk/i,  July  12, 1H88. 

The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  Chandlkr]  the  other  day 
introduced  in  the  Senate  a  letter  front  Hon.  Charles  Levi  Woodbury 
concernino;  this  matter,  which  is  such  high  authority  on  this  subject 
that  I  am  inclined  to  add  it  also  to  the  letters  that  appear  upon  thi.s 
<luestion.  The  Senator  Irom  .Vew  Hampshire  ex|>lained  to  the  .Senile 
and  to  the  country  who  Charles  Levi  Woodbury  was  and  who  he  is.  I 
suppose  there  are  few  men  in  the  country,  if  there  are  any,  who  are  as 
well  qualified  to  speak  on  this  subject  as  Mr.  Woodbury;  probably  no 
one  unless  it  be  Mr.  Trescott,  who  is  also  a  Democratic  diplomat  and 
who  has  spoken  in  the  .same  general  direction  that  Mr.  Woodbury  has. 
So  when  Mr.  Tupper  says  the  entire  Democratic  party  of  the  country 
are  in  accord  with  the  ideas  of  this  treaty  he  is  mistaken.  That  is  not 
the  fact. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury  is  as  follows: 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Sun  : 

SiE:  The  Chamberlain  treaty  is  now  before  the  Senate.  It  surrenders  every- 
thing the  United  States  have  contended  for  since  IS.'W,  when  the  dispute  on  the 
3-mile  limit  began,  contentions  which  the  British  authorities  have  assented  to 
or  temporized  about  as  often  as  pressed,  so  that  really  in  no  entire  year  since 
then  have  they  insisted  on  enforcing  their  headland  theory. 

The  commercial  rights  of  the  United  .States  inxler  the  agreements  of  18.30  were 
utterly  abandoned  by  Mr.  Bayard  after  much  previous  insistence  on  their  obli- 
).ation. 

The  rightsof  common  humanity  toward  our  vessels  in  distress,  accorded  every- 
where except  on  the  Caiiadian  coast,  are  hereafter  tO  be  allowed  only  upon 
tliQ  condition  that  the  United  States  shall  change  its  present  registry  laws  by 
repealing  them,  and  enacting  such  new  ones  as  are  acceptable  to  the  British 
Government  before  going  into  efliect.  This  of  course  leaves  the  humanity  of 
Canada  to  vessels  of  the  United  .States  in  distress  withheld  until  the  United 
States  shall  pay  the  consideration  by  repealing  its  laws  and  making  such  new 
ones. 

Commercial  intercourse  by  our  fishing  vessels  is  disallowed,  but  they  may  he 
permitted  to  buy  a  narrow  line  of  supplies,  whose  extent  would  not  exceed 
^,000  a  year,  when  the  United  States  shal.'  have  repealed  existing  duties,  now 
over  8611,000  a  year,  on  Canadian  fish  and  oi.',  and  made  them  free  in  our  mar- 
kets. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  treaty, all  losses  to  the  United  States  bothin  honor 
and  profit.  General  .hickson  and  Mr.  McLane,  Van  Buren  and  Forsyth.  Ste- 
venson and  Everett,  Webster,  Rush,  Grant,  Evarts.  and  even  Bayard  and  Phelps, 
for  two  of  their  otHcial  years,  are  buried  beneatti  this  treaty  and  their  memories 
dishonored  by  its  retreat  from  their  patriotic  contentions  lor  American  rightaw 


53 

Cavilern  have  said  the  treaty  of  1818  was  wrung  fi-om  our  weakness,  but  this 
treaty,  made  in  the  hour  of  our  streuKth,  surrenders  what  that  never  did— our 
markets;  and  it  doubles  the  waters  from  which  it  requires  we  shall  be  forever 
excluded. 

The  consequence  of  adoptiuK  this  treaty  would  be  the  destruction  of  the  fish- 
ery under  the  American  HaK,  the  paralysis  of  our  hope  of  naval  power,  and  a 
British  monopoly  of  our  markets,  aggrandizing  its  dangerous  naval  power. 
Let  the  treaty  be  rejected. 

CHAULES  LEVI  WOODBURY. 

Boston,  May  4, 1888. 

Mr.  President,  there  are  some  provisions  of  this  treaty  the  details 
of  which  I  should  like  to  have  gone  into  more  extensively,  and  there 
are  several  thinj^s  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  transactions  ot' 
early  times  that  I  should  like  to  refer  to  if  I  had  not  already  detained 
the  Senate  to  an  unusual  length  on  this  subject.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
it  is  one  that  the  American  people  have  interest  in ;  it  is  one  that  the 
American  people  do  not  consider  a  local  question;  it  is  one,  as  was  said 
by  more  than  one  member  of  the  Houseof  Representatives  in  1887,  that 
does  not  concern  a  few  fish.  It  is  not  a  local  controversy,  said  they;  it 
is  not  a  skirmish  about  fish,  said  two  members  at  least,  one  of  whom  is 
now  an  honored  member  of  this  body;  it  is  not  a  question  of  property, 
but  a  question  of  honor,  of  dignity,  and  of  right,  and  aquestion  whether 
we  are  to  surrender  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  a  threat  of  war  or  to 
escape  evils  of  any  other  kind. 

Mr.  President,  we  were  told  here  and  we  have  been  told  elsewhere, 
that  the  PresideuL  of  the  United  States  would  put  in  force  the  act  of 
1887;  that  he  would  put  it  in  force  in  such  a  way,  we  have  been  told 
in  substance,  as  to  disturb  and  destroy  the  business  of  the  country ;  that 
we  had  armed  him  with  a  power  which  was  very  dangerous.  Why, 
sir,  if  the  President  of  the  United  States  chooses  to  disturb  business  for 
the  purpose  of  compelling  decent  treatment  to  our  seamen  on  the  north- 
ern seas,  very  well,  let  him  do  it. 

If  any  other  method  can  be  devised  by  which  the  seamen  may  be  pro- 
tected in  their  rights,  let  him  put  us  in  a  position  of  complete  non- 
commercial intercourse,  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  not 
complain.  If  the  exclusion  of  fresh  fish  from  Canada  will  do  it,  the 
people  will  not  justify  him  in  going  beyond  that.  He  can  not  by  way 
of  punishment  to  the  Se"ute  disturb  the  business  of  the  country,  and 
the  Senate  will  not  be  influenced  by  any  suggestions  of  newspapers, 
whether  they  get  their  ideas  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  the  Balti- 
more Sun  seems  to  have  done,  or  from  anywhere  else,  that  the  business 
of  the  country  is  to  be  disturbed  if  we  do  not  accept  this  treaty. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  George]  said  it  is  foredoomed 
to  defeat.  Undoubtedly,  and  it  is  foredoomed  to  defeat  at  this  ses- 
sion, I  want  to  say  to  the  Senator;  and  if  the  President  of  the  United 
States  declines  to  put  in  force  in  any  proper  manner  the  statute  that 
we  enacted  for  that  purpose,  he  must  take  the  responsibility  if  disturb- 
ances arise,  and  not  we.  We  can  not  be  moved  by  threats  of  dis- 
turbed business  any  more  than  we  can  by  the  suggestion  made  by  the 
Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Mokgan]  that  this  might  lead  to  war, 
that  commercial  war  was  close  on  to  real  war.  When  the  act  of  1887 
was  before  the  Senate,  the  Senator  from  Alabama  said  it  does  not  mean 
war,  it  means  peace.  Now,  we  are  told  that  it  may  mean  war.  Who 
has  the  right  to  threaten  the  American  Senate  with  war  ?  Who  makes 
war  ?  Certainly  nobody  in  the  Senate  individually  and  nobody  in  the 
executive  department  is  likely  to  make  war.  Great  Britain  is  not 
likely  to  go  to  war  with  us  for  that  which  she  has  absolutely  abandoned 


54 


and  surrendered  and  for  that  which  she  has  never  vigoronsly  enforced 
at  any  time  in  the  history  of  this  claim  by  the  Canadian  authorities. 
Great  Britain  does  not  go  to  war  without  cause,  unless  she  knows 
that  she  has  it  in  her  power  to  acquire  great  good  to  herself  by  so 
doing.  It  is  simply  absurd  to  talk  about  a  war  with  Great  Britain;  it 
is  folly.  But  we  are  as  ready  for  war  as  Great  Britain.  We  may  not 
have  as  many  guns,  but  we  would  have  means  for  maintaining  the 
honor  and  the  dignity  of  the  American  people  in  a  war  with  Great 
Britain  or  with  any  other  country,  and  we  will  not  surrender  one  jot 
or  one  tittle  of  that  which  belong  to  us  for  fear  of  war,  nor  under 
covert  threats  that  if  we  do  not  accept  this  treaty  something  will  follow 
it  that  will  be  worse  and  the  business  of  the  country  will  be  disturbed. 
We  can  say  for  ourselves  on  this  side  of  the  Chamber  that  we  approach 
this  question  with  as  much  patriotism  as  Senators  on  the  other  side, 
and  we  can  point  to  the  fact  that  until  recently  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  Government  and  the  executive  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment were  in  perfect  harmony  with  xu  npon  this  qneetion. 


